In a significant legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the lawsuit brought by Genius against Google, thereby upholding the decisions reached in lower courts. Genius, a web resource that publishes song lyrics with a valid license, has been attempting to prove since 2019 that Google unlawfully appropriates its work. The search engine retrieves song lyrics from the LyricFind service, which Genius claims copies from their platform and licenses to Google.
Genius’ original lawsuit suffered setbacks in 2020 when it was dismissed in both the district and appellate courts. District Judge Margo Brody ruled that Genius’ claims were “preempted” by the U.S. Copyright Act, and the subsequent appeal proved unsuccessful.
Ironically, Genius itself teetered on the brink of wrongdoing. The company argued that their publication of licensed lyrics involved labor and resources that bestowed additional rights beyond the original copyrights. However, the judge contended that Genius had essentially created unauthorized derivative works based on the originals, making their claims akin to copyright claims. The district court ruling stated, “Defendants have unauthorizedly reproduced Plaintiff’s work, which itself infringes the owners’ exclusive right under the federal Copyright Act.” In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Genius contended that the Copyright Act does not negate Google’s violation of their site’s terms of use, which prohibit copying. Genius argued that the law does not contradict the additional restrictions defined in their contractual agreement. They asserted that the court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for companies that possess licenses but lack copyrights to content, undermining the sanctity of contractual relationships.
Google, in response, dismissed Genius’ assertions as alarmist hyperbole and stood by the appellate court’s ruling. “The Second Circuit correctly held that Genius’s contract claims were equivalent to a copyright infringement claim and thus preempted. Genius’s contract claims are disguised copyright claims. Genius seeks to enforce rights that are not only equivalent to, but virtually identical to, those set forth in Section 106 of the Copyright Act.”
The U.S. government extensively examined the case and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit. The State Department concluded that there were no discernible differences between the rights asserted by Genius and those protected under federal law. The government’s appeal also highlighted the absence of any established contractual agreement that Google allegedly breached. “[Genius] does not allege that respondents expressly promised not to copy lyrics from petitioner’s website. Rather, according to petitioner, any person who visits its website 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.”
Evidently, the U.S. Supreme Court concurred with the rulings of the lower courts.
Ultimately, this decision signifies that a company cannot claim rights similar to copyright through a contract that is not mutually agreed upon. It establishes a precedent regarding the limitations of contractual relationships when it comes to asserting copyright-like rights.