Miley Cyrus has responded to a lawsuit alleging her song “Flowers” infringes on Bruno Mars‘ “When I Was Your Man.” Denying the claims, Cyrus pointed to legal flaws in the case and defended her work.
What are the main points of her response, and how might this case unfold? Let’s explore the details.
What did Miley Cyrus say about ‘Flowers’ copyright lawsuit?
Miley Cyrus, via her attorney Peter Anderson, has responded to a copyright lawsuit alleging her song “Flowers” infringes on Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man,” calling the case a “fatal flaw.”
In a motion filed in Los Angeles federal court, her legal team claims the plaintiff, Tempo Music Investments, lacks the right to sue. They state this is because Tempo only acquired rights from one of the four co-authors of the Mars song. Without consent from the other co-owners, the lawsuit cannot proceed, according to Cyrus’ attorneys.
The motion notes that Tempo Music only obtained “non-exclusive rights” from co-writer Philip Lawrence. Under U.S. copyright law, non-exclusive rights do not allow Tempo to file infringement claims. “Plaintiff unambiguously [says] that it obtained its claimed rights in the ‘When I Was Your Man’ copyright from only one of that musical composition’s four co-authors,” the attorneys explained. “That is a fatal and incurable defect in plaintiff’s claim,” they added. (via Billboard)
Tempo Music’s lead counsel, Alex Weingarten, countered these arguments, calling Cyrus’ motion “intellectually dishonest.” He argued that Tempo, as the owner of Lawrence’s share, has the right to enforce its interest. “They’re seeking to make bogus technical arguments because they don’t have an actual substantive defense to the case,” said Weingarten.
The lawsuit, filed in September, claims “Flowers” copies “melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements” from “When I Was Your Man.” It argues Cyrus’ hit “would not exist” without the earlier track. However, legal experts have noted that similar lyrics or elements alone may not violate copyright law. They also highlight that “Flowers” differs significantly in its musical structure.
Cyrus’ team denies copying, emphasizing “striking differences” between the songs. They argue that any shared elements are “random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks.” The court’s decision on Tempo Music’s standing will determine if the case proceeds further.
Comments are closed.