The US Supreme Court has declined to hear Genius’ lawsuit against Google, affirming lower court rulings that ruled against Genius. Since 2019, Genius, a web resource that specializes in publishing song lyrics under appropriate licenses, has been trying to prove that Google is “stealing” its work. The search engine generates lyrics through a service called LyricFind, which Genius claims copies lyrics from its platform and licenses them to Google.
The original lawsuit, filed in 2020, was unsuccessful for Genius in both the district and appellate courts. District Judge Margo Brody ruled that Genius’ claims “preempt” the U.S. Copyright Act, a ruling that was not overturned by a subsequent appeal.
Ironically, Genius also found itself in a precarious position. The company argued that by transcribing and publishing the licensed lyrics, it had invested labor and resources, entitling it to additional rights beyond copyright. However, the judge said that Genius actually created secondary unauthorized works based on the originals, making their claims similar to copyright claims. The district court’s ruling said, “Defendants have unauthorizedly reproduced Plaintiff’s work, which in and of itself violates the owners’ exclusive right under federal copyright law.” Genius then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Google’s violation of their site’s terms of use constituted a separate offense independent of the Copyright Act. They argued that the contractual restrictions defined by Genius should not be contrary to the law. Genius warned that the decision could set a dangerous precedent for companies holding licenses but not copyrights to content, undermining contractual relationships.
In response, Google dismissed Genius’ arguments as troubling hyperbole and upheld the appeals court’s decision. “The Second Circuit correctly held that Genius’s contract claims are equivalent to copyright infringement claims and therefore not actionable. Genius’s contract claims are disguised copyright claims. Genius seeks to enforce rights that are not only equivalent to, but virtually identical to, the rights set forth in Section 106 of the Copyright Act.”
The U.S. government considered the case and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit. According to the State Department, there was no finding of a material difference between the rights claimed by Genius and those protected under federal law. The government’s appeal also emphasizes that Google’s breach of contract claim has not been proven. “[Genius] does not allege that defendants expressly promised not to copy lyrics from plaintiff’s website. To the contrary, according to the plaintiff, any person who visits its site automatically becomes a contractual counterparty and agrees to the terms of service, regardless of whether the visitor is aware of the browsing agreement or any of its specific provisions.”
In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that a company cannot assert copyright-like rights over a contract that was not entered into by mutual consent. This decision has significant implications for similar cases and underscores the importance of clearly articulated copyright protection and contractual agreements in intellectual property disputes.