Google may have been “re-arrested,” but a federal judge has ruled that Genius does not claim viable claims that have not been prejudged by copyright.
Genius Media Group was quite sensible when it used digital watermarks to show that Google had used its enormous collection of lyrics. One of those watermarks is spelled “handled” in Morse code. That Google was caught up with another site’s lyrical transcripts made international news – and even earned a mention during ‘Big Tech’s hearing late last month. But was there anything illegal about Google’s proven scraping (directly or indirectly)? On Monday, a New York federal judge dismissed Genius’ claims.
Genie does not own the copyright to the lyrics. Those rights belong to publishers and songwriters. Genie has a granted permission to the lyrics in question. In addition, Genius spends a lot of time and millions of dollars on unifying collaborative lyrical transcription. Can it not protect his sweat? Genie believed that. Genie prohibits its users from submitting their transcripts for commercial purposes. Google has sued the Services, demanding a lawsuit be filed in New York state court. Genius’ suit also targeted LyricFind for what it was supposed to be delivering to Google (which provided texts to third parties).
After the case was filed in December, Google had referred it to federal court on the grounds that Genius’ state requirements were met. Because federal court provides the exclusive jurisdiction for copyright disputes, the initial question in this case as Genius was to do something more than claim copyright. That’s the subject of a new 36-page opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Margo Brodie.
There is little doubt that the transcribed lyrics fit into the types of works protected by copyright law and thus satisfy the subject matter of a proposed claim. Under precedent, however, claims over state contracts can survive as long as there is an “extra element” at stake. These may be contractual obligations that are qualitatively different from a copyright claim.
Here, Brodie rejects the proposition that Genius’ attempt to protect against scratching for profit is an additional element.
“The infringement by the plaintiff of claims of contract is nothing more than claims which seek to protect the exclusive rights of the copyright holders against protection against unauthorized reproduction of the texts and are therefore denied,” the judge wrote. “Although Earder describes the rights they seek to uphold as’ broader and different from the exclusive right existing under the Copyright Act, ‘based on’ the substantial investment of time and labor by [Plaintiff] in a competing market, ‘and alleges infringement of contracts based on alleged breaches of Plaintiff’s Terms of Service, Plaintiff’s own ability to transcribe and display the texts on its website arises from’ the licensing rights that plaintiff has in the texts … ‘
Judge Brodie adds that transcripts of Genius are in fact “derivative works”, and even if Genius creates them and retains some ownership, “the plaintiff’s claim is preceded by the Copyright Act, because, at its core. , it is a claim that defendants made an unauthorized reproduction of the plaintiff’s derivative work, which is itself conduct that infringes an exclusive right of the owner of copyright under federal copyright. “
In addition, the opinion finds that Genius’ unfair competition claim is also prejudicial. Brodie writes that Google is not accused of “violating fiduciary duty or confidentiality”, and that the lawsuit essentially accuses Google of “passing on” its own work product as its own. She concludes, “Unfair competitive claims that are allegations of reverse traffic have been preceded by the Copyright Act,” and Genius’ “unfair competition claims are not kept preemptive by their allegations of mistrust, injustice, and misleading, unethical and immoral conduct. “
Rejecting Genius’ motion to return the case to a state court, Brodie dismissed the complaint for failure to make a claim. Here is the full opinion:
