Grammy-winning artist Miley Cyrus confronts allegations of copyright infringement over similarities between "Flowers" and Bruno Mars' "When I Was Your Man"
December 2, 2024Pop star Miley Cyrus has filed a motion to dismiss a copyright lawsuit alleging her Grammy-winning hit "Flowers" plagiarized elements from Bruno Mars' 2013 track "When I Was Your Man." The legal battle intensifies as Cyrus's team strongly refutes claims of unauthorized copying.
Tempo Music Investments, which owns a partial copyright to "When I Was Your Man" through its acquisition of songwriter Philip Lawrence's catalog, initiated the lawsuit. The company claims that "Flowers" duplicates multiple melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements from Mars' original composition.
The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles court, specifically targets alleged similarities between the two songs' musical structures and arrangements. Tempo Music Investments seeks to halt the reproduction, distribution, and public performance of "Flowers" while pursuing unspecified damages.
In documents filed on November 20, 2024, Cyrus's legal team presented a robust defense against the allegations. They argue that Tempo Music Investments lacks proper standing to sue for copyright infringement since they only own a partial stake in the original song's rights.
The motion to dismiss emphasizes that Tempo Music acquired rights solely from one co-writer, Philip Lawrence, while having no affiliation with the track's other co-writers, including Ari Levine and Andrew Wyatt. Cyrus's attorneys assert that only owners of exclusive rights may pursue copyright infringement claims.
"Flowers" has proven to be one of Cyrus's most successful releases, earning critical acclaim and commercial success. The song's popularity has translated into significant streaming numbers and chart performance, making the stakes in this legal battle particularly high.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in the music industry regarding copyright protection and creative inspiration. Similar high-profile cases have emerged in recent years, demonstrating the complex nature of musical ownership and artistic influence in contemporary pop music.
This lawsuit joins a growing list of copyright disputes in the music industry, where the line between inspiration and infringement often blurs. The outcome could potentially influence how future cases approach partial copyright ownership and standing in music litigation.
The case also raises questions about the evolution of songwriting in an era where musical influences are increasingly diverse and interconnected. Industry observers note that such legal challenges may impact how artists and songwriters approach creative processes and collaborations.
As the legal proceedings continue, both parties await the court's decision on Cyrus's motion to dismiss. The case's resolution could set important precedents for future music copyright disputes, particularly regarding partial copyright holders' rights to pursue infringement claims.
Representatives for both Cyrus and Tempo Music Investments have not provided additional comments on the ongoing litigation, as the case continues to develop through legal channels.
