In a blow to Genius Music Group, the Supreme Court on
Monday left in place a decision dismissing claims that Google wrongly scraped lyrics from Genius's site.
As is customary, the Supreme Court did not give a reason for its refusal to hear
Genius's appeal.
The move brings an end to a battle dating to 2019, when Genius sued Google, along with the company LyricFind, for allegedly copying lyrics from Genius and displaying them in
the search results. (LyricFind allegedly scraped the lyrics and licensed them to Google.)
Genius licensed the right to display the lyrics (which were themselves posted by users) but did not
own a copyright to them, and didn't claim that Google infringed federal copyright law.
Genius alleged in its complaint that Google and LyricFind broke their contract with Genius by violating
its terms of service, which prohibit website visitors from distributing content for commercial purposes.
Google and LyricFind countered that claims stemming from scraping websites and
displaying content are rooted in federal copyright law -- which, the companies contended, overrides claims related to contractual violations.
U.S. District Court Judge Margo Brodie in the
Eastern District of New York agreed with the companies and dismissed Genius's complaint in 2020, ruling that its claims were precluded by federal copyright law.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd
Circuit upheld that decision last year.
Genius then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear an appeal, arguing that federal copyright law shouldn't override claims stemming from alleged
violations of a website's terms of service.
The company said the only way it can protect its business “is to condition otherwise-free access on a visitor’s promise not to collect
Genius’s content and use it for competing commercial purposes.”
Open Markets Institute is backing that position, arguing that the lower court's decision threatens numerous online
sites.
Late last year, the Supreme Court asked the Biden administration to weigh in on the dispute. In May the Department of Justice urged the court to turn away Genius, arguing that the dispute between the companies was “a poor
vehicle” for deciding whether federal copyright law precludes Genius's claims.
Genius's “breach-of-contract claims are atypical ... because access to petitioner’s website is
not conditioned on any express promise to abide by petitioner’s terms of service, and petitioner does not contend that respondents made any such express promise here,” attorneys with the
Solicitor General's office wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.