Phillips v. Google LLC

Background

Kenneth Phillips, representing himself, sued Google LLC and YouTube LLC after alleging that he entered into a contract with YouTube concerning the sale or licensing of his music. He alleged that the defendants used his musical works, that he was not paid royalties, and that YouTube eventually stopped communicating with him. The complaint was understood to assert breach of contract and copyright infringement. The defendants removed the case from New York state court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Breach-of-contract claim

The court held that Phillips’s contract allegations were conclusory and lacked the necessary details. He did not identify the contract’s subject or terms, explain his own obligations or performance, identify the defendants’ obligations, or specify what contractual provision the defendants breached. His references in his opposition papers to a YouTube partner provision and a third-party program did not supply those missing facts. The court therefore dismissed the breach-of-contract claim without prejudice and granted Phillips leave to amend it with factual allegations, to the extent such facts existed.

Copyright claim

The court construed Phillips’s allegations about the use of his musical works and nonpayment of royalties as asserting copyright infringement, even though he did not expressly label the claim that way. A copyright-infringement claim requires allegations that the plaintiff owns a valid copyright and that the defendant copied original elements of the work. Phillips did not allege that he owned valid copyrights or that he had registered the works with the U.S. Copyright Office, and he did not describe specific unauthorized acts such as reproduction, distribution, or public performance.

The court also explained that if the defendants had permission to use Phillips’s music but failed to pay agreed royalties, the resulting claim would be for breach of contract rather than copyright infringement. If Phillips instead contended that the use was unauthorized, an amended complaint would need to describe the specific acts of infringement.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Phillips leave to file an amended complaint conforming to the opinion and order. The opinion expressly states that the breach-of-contract claim was dismissed without prejudice. It does not separately state a dismissal qualifier for the copyright claim, although the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted and leave to amend was provided.