In a significant legal development, pop sensation Miley Cyrus has lost her initial bid to dismiss a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against her in a California federal court. The lawsuit alleges that her chart-topping single “Flowers” unlawfully copies elements from Bruno Mars’ hit song “When I Was Your Man.” This decision, made by U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson, allows the case to proceed towards trial, marking a notable setback for Cyrus.
The lawsuit was initiated by Tempo Music Investments, a company that acquired a portion of the copyright for “When I Was Your Man” from co-writer Philip Lawrence in 2020. Despite not being affiliated with Mars, Tempo asserts that “Flowers” replicates numerous melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements from Mars’ song, which dominated the Billboard Hot 100 in 2013.
Cyrus’s legal team had argued that Tempo lacked the authority to sue, as it did not hold exclusive rights to the song. However, Judge Pregerson ruled that Tempo, as a co-owner, has the legal standing to pursue the case without needing to involve other co-owners.
“Flowers,” released as part of Cyrus’s 2023 album “Endless Summer Vacation,” has achieved immense success, amassing over 1 billion streams on Spotify and winning the Grammy Award for Song of the Year in 2024. The lawsuit claims that the similarities between the two songs are undeniable and that “Flowers” would not exist without “When I Was Your Man.”
Tempo’s attorney, Alex Weingarten, expressed confidence in the company’s chances of prevailing in the case, stating they are “thrilled but not the least surprised” by the decision. This confidence reflects the company’s belief in the strength of their argument regarding the similarities between the two songs.
The legal battle between Tempo Music Investments and Miley Cyrus highlights the complexities of copyright law, particularly in cases involving partial ownership of intellectual property. The ruling underscores that co-owners of a copyright can sue for infringement without needing the consent of all other co-owners, which has significant implications for the music industry.
This principle supports the value of jointly owned copyrights by allowing partial owners to enforce their rights, thereby encouraging collaboration among artists and songwriters. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for future copyright disputes involving partial ownership and alleged musical influences.
Related topics:
