The US Supreme Court has refused to hear Genius’ lawsuit against Google, upholding lower court rulings that found no merit to Genius’ claims. Since 2019, Genius, a platform that publishes song lyrics under a valid license, has been trying to prove that Google is “stealing” its work. The search engine generates lyrics using a service called LyricFind, which Genius claims copies lyrics from its website and licenses them to Google.
In 2020. Genius was defeated in both the district and appellate courts. District Judge Margo Brody ruled that Genius’ lawsuit “prevails” over the U.S. Copyright Act, a ruling that was upheld on appeal. Ironically, Genius found itself on the verge of guilt because the court felt that by publishing licensed lyrics, the company had essentially created secondary unauthorized works based on original copyrights. The judge argued that Genius’ claims were no different from copyright claims and that Google had reproduced Genius’ works without authorization, violating the owners’ exclusive rights under federal copyright law.
Genius appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Google’s breach of the terms of use of their website should not be invalidated under the Copyright Act. They argued that additional contractual restrictions prohibiting copying of material should not be against the law. Genius warned that the decision would set a dangerous precedent that ignores contractual relationships between companies that own licenses but not copyrights to content.
In response, Google dismissed Genius’ claims as disturbing hyperbole, upholding the appeals court’s decision. Google argued that Genius’s contract claims were essentially equivalent to copyright infringement claims and therefore not covered by the Copyright Act. The company argued that Genius was attempting to enforce rights virtually identical to those protected by Section 106 of the Copyright Act.
The U.S. government also intervened in the case, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit. The State Department ruled that there were no material differences between the rights claimed by Genius and those already protected under federal law. The government’s appeal emphasized the absence of any established contract between Genius and Google expressly prohibiting copying song lyrics from the Genius website. It emphasized, however, that visitors to the site automatically become bound by the terms of service, regardless of their awareness of the browsing agreement or its specific provisions.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, effectively confirming that a company cannot claim copyright-like rights in a contract that was not entered into by mutual consent. This decision has significant implications for companies seeking to assert additional rights beyond copyright through contractual agreements.
