Biden The administration’s US solicitor general said on Tuesday that the US Supreme Court should not review the decision won by Alphabet Google LLC Against Lyric-Lyrics Website genius On Google’s alleged copying of Genius’s song transcription.
solicitor General elizabeth prologer A court brief said the judges should uphold the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that Genius’ case was preempted by federal copyright law.
A Google spokesperson said Wednesday that the company “does not crawl or scour websites for the source of songs,” and that “the Solicitor General and multiple courts continue to find that Genius’s claims are without merit.”
Representatives for Genius and the solicitor general’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
Genius, formerly known as rap geniusGoogle was sued in 2019 in New York state court for allegedly posting its song transcriptions at the top of Google search results without permission.
Genius does not own the copyrights to the songs, which are usually owned by the artists or publishers. It accused Google of violating its terms of service by stealing its work and reposting it on Google webpages.
The 2nd Circuit last year upheld a Manhattan federal court ruling that Genius’s claims of breach of contract were based on copyright concerns and could only be pursued in a copyright lawsuit.
Genius told the Supreme Court that a Google victory could allow big tech companies to steal content from sites that collect user-generated information, including Reddit, eBay and Wikipedia, without consequences.
Google said it holds the license for the songs and argued that Genius “seeks to ignore the true copyright owners and invent new rights through a purported contract.”
Prologger on Tuesday criticized the Second Circuit’s suggestion that copyright law “explicitly” bars contract claims that are based on a promise not to “copy” creative works.
But the solicitor general recommended dismissing the petition because it was not clear whether Genius could prove it had a valid contract with Google.
Prologer also said that there was “little indication” that another appeals court would have handled the case differently.
solicitor General elizabeth prologer A court brief said the judges should uphold the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that Genius’ case was preempted by federal copyright law.
A Google spokesperson said Wednesday that the company “does not crawl or scour websites for the source of songs,” and that “the Solicitor General and multiple courts continue to find that Genius’s claims are without merit.”
Representatives for Genius and the solicitor general’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
Genius, formerly known as rap geniusGoogle was sued in 2019 in New York state court for allegedly posting its song transcriptions at the top of Google search results without permission.
Genius does not own the copyrights to the songs, which are usually owned by the artists or publishers. It accused Google of violating its terms of service by stealing its work and reposting it on Google webpages.
The 2nd Circuit last year upheld a Manhattan federal court ruling that Genius’s claims of breach of contract were based on copyright concerns and could only be pursued in a copyright lawsuit.
Genius told the Supreme Court that a Google victory could allow big tech companies to steal content from sites that collect user-generated information, including Reddit, eBay and Wikipedia, without consequences.
Google said it holds the license for the songs and argued that Genius “seeks to ignore the true copyright owners and invent new rights through a purported contract.”
Prologger on Tuesday criticized the Second Circuit’s suggestion that copyright law “explicitly” bars contract claims that are based on a promise not to “copy” creative works.
But the solicitor general recommended dismissing the petition because it was not clear whether Genius could prove it had a valid contract with Google.
Prologer also said that there was “little indication” that another appeals court would have handled the case differently.