By: William H. Kronblat

In today’s music landscape it may feel painfully obvious that some artists incorporate, mimic, or replicate parts of previous songs—even those that are not their own—on the way to producing top charting hits. While this practice may feel commonplace it still presents a very relevant and contemporary copyright-centric legal question as to whether that copying was allowed, who has ownership of the musical composition used, and what remedies are allowed if someone were to unlawfully copy a copyrighted work. Moreover, if someone in the music industry wants to bring a copyright lawsuit forward, who is legally able to do so? This particular question has come to the forefront of one the latest celebrity music copyright lawsuits in which Tempo Music has sued Miley Cyrus, alleging she ripped off Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man” in her hit song “Flowers”. 

The Leadup to the Lawsuit:

In January of 2013 Bruno Mars Released his hit song “When I Was Your Man” as a single. A few years later in 2020, Tempo Music Investments acquired a share of the copyright to the song from one its four writers, Philip Lawrence. Roughly a decade after Mars released his single, in January of 2023, Miley Cyrus released her hit song “Flowers”. It quickly topped charts  and was “streamed more than 2 billon times on Spotify.” The popular song also garnered  Cyrus a Grammy award for Record of the Year, and a Grammy award for Best Pop Solo Performance. As of June of 2024, Cyrus’ song made history by holding the top spot on various music charts. Then in September of 2024, Tempo Music Investments filed a civil lawsuit against Cyrus. The lawsuit did not list the song’s other three songwriters as plaintiffs. 

The Heart of the Lawsuit and Cryus’ Motion to Dismiss:

Tempo Music Investments accused Cyrus of copying or mimicking parts of Mars’ song including key elements like the melody, harmony, and chorus. Tempo Music Investments claimed that     “based on the combination and number of similarities between the two recordings that “Flowers” would not exist without “When I Was Your Man.” In addition to Cyrus, the lawsuit names “Flowers” other songwriters as defendants along with Sony Music Publishing and various distributors like Amazon, Walmart, and Target. In the lawsuit, Tempo Music Investments is seeking damages and to bar Cyrus from performing and distributing “Flowers”. 

Cyrus and her legal team responded by filing a motion to dismiss arguing that the lawsuit should be thrown out. In the motion to dismiss, Cyrus’ legal team asserts that the “allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks.” However, the more intricate argument that Cyrus’ legal team advances is that Tempo Music Investments does not have standing to bring the lawsuit. They claim that in the 9^th Circuit, where the lawsuit was brought, there is precedent that a copyright holder must have exclusive rights over the copyright under Section 501(b) to confer standing. Furthermore, they claim that Tempo Music Investments lacks exclusive rights over the copyright because they only have a partial interest from Philip Lawrence—one of the four songwriters of “When I Was Your Man”— and do not have the interests from the other “When I Was Your Man” songwriters. 

A New Precedent Out of the Ninth Circuit?

This motion to dismiss hearing is set to take place on January 27^th of 2025 in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Tempo’s lawyers have already noted that they adamantly disagree with Cyrus’ standing to sue argument noting that it is “blackletter law” any one owner of copyright could bring a lawsuit without the other owners. Nonetheless, Cyrus’ motion to dismiss has opened the doors for a new precedent on who can bring a copyright lawsuit (more specifically in the Ninth Circuit). Some lawyers and legal scholars believe that if Cyrus’ standing claim is successful it may create a “problematic” precedent. If her argument is successful, it could make it increasingly difficult to enforce a copyright without every partial owner’s participation.  This could have significant ramifications for the licensing of intellectual property and would diminish the value of licensing fractional shares of copyrights. 

Ultimately, this case could fundamentally change how intellectual property contracts are done in the entertainment industry and cast a shadow on numerous previous license deals because it may render partial ownership of IP worthless. The ability to enforce your intellectual property is a fundamental aspect of intellectual property law. If this precedent is established, those who purchase partial ownership of a copyright will be left powerless to enforce their newly purchased copyright, and they will be at the mercy of the other copyright owners as to whether they can go after potential infringers. As noted above, this case is still in district court and would require a decision on appeal to officially set any kind of precedent. However, even if this case does not go up on appeal it may still present the foundation for a new legal argument others may attempt to adopt. In the meantime, this will be an important case for any intellectual property owner or intellectual property lawyer to keep an eye on.  

#Miley Cyrus, #Copyright, #Flowers Lawsuit