Miley Cyrus files motion to dismiss ‘Flowers’ lawsuit

In a dramatic twist in the ongoing legal saga involving Miley Cyrus’s popular track “Flowers,” the singer’s legal team has filed a motion seeking to dismiss a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement from Bruno Mars’s hit “When I Was Your Man.” The crux of Cyrus’s defense hinges on what her attorneys describe as a “fatal flaw”—the absence of Mars and his co-writers as plaintiffs in the case, raising significant debate over the entitlement to sue under copyright law.

The lawsuit, initiated by Tempo Music Investments, accuses Cyrus’s song “Flowers,” which dominated the charts and earned the artist significant accolades, of copying key elements from Mars’s 2013 hit. These elements include melodic and harmonic materials, specific pitch patterns, and distinctive bass-line structures. Despite the allegations, the lawsuit notably omits Mars as a plaintiff, with Tempo, having acquired a partial interest in the song’s rights from co-writer Philip Lawrence, spearheading the legal action instead.

Cyrus’s defense strategy, articulated by attorney Peter Anderson, emphasizes that Tempo’s ownership constitutes only a non-exclusive part of the song rights, legally weakening their case. They assert that, according to U.S. copyright law, the lawsuit lacks standing without the consent and participation of all co-authors who hold exclusive rights. This procedural argument seeks to block Tempo from pursuing the infringement claims solely on their partial ownership, a standpoint that has drawn criticism from Tempo’s lead counsel, Alex Weingarten. Weingarten has countered by labeling Cyrus’s defense as “intellectually dishonest,” arguing that their rights entitle them to enforce the copyright.

The legal battle has garnered widespread attention, not least because “Flowers” parallels thematic elements of “When I Was Your Man.” Fans and critics have noted the lyrical similarities, with Cyrus’s song serving as a defiant response to Mars’s narrative of romantic regret. The chord progression and melodic structure have sparked enough debate to send Mars’s song back into streaming popularity, though music law experts like Joseph Fishman contend that Cyrus’s usage likely doesn’t infringe upon Mars’s work directly due to the lack of melody sampling.

In seeking the lawsuit’s dismissal, Cyrus’s defense underscores the broader implications for copyright law and the music industry, particularly concerning joint ownership rights. The arguments presented focus heavily on the necessity of exclusive rights for initiating copyright infringement actions, a foundational criterion that Tempo’s ownership, according to Cyrus’s lawyers, does not fulfill. This point of contention could significantly influence the lawsuit’s trajectory, potentially setting precedents for future cases involving partial ownership of creative works.

Cyrus’s legal maneuver not only challenges the lawsuit on technical grounds but also looks to protect her artistic work, which has gained critical and commercial success independently of Mars’s influence, they claim. The narrative of “Flowers” has resonated with audiences worldwide as an anthem of self-reliance and empowerment, adding another layer to the public discourse surrounding the lawsuit.

This case continues to unfold as both parties brace for potential court deliberations unless an out-of-court resolution emerges, making it a keenly watched conflict in the entertainment industry. Much hangs on the decision of whether Cyrus’s appeal for dismissal is upheld, potentially altering the landscape of artistic ownership and rights enforcement in an era of increasingly complex media transactions.