By: Brianna Marquinez
Miley Cyrus, international pop star, was sued in September 2024 for copyright infringement regarding her Grammy-award winning single “Flowers” because it contains conspicuous similarities to the track “When I Was Your Man” by Bruno Mars. The lawsuit alleges that Cyrus’ song encompasses the impermissible exploitation of numerous elements from Mars’ song, revealing an undeniable connection between the two recordings. Given the noticeable parallels, there has been much deliberation regarding whether Cyrus did in fact infringe the copyright of the ballad “When I Was Your Man” and what concepts of intellectual property law could be used to prove or disprove this theory.
In January 2023, Cyrus released her song “Flowers” which gained significant notoriety for its catchy tune and won many awards, including Billboard Music Awards, an iHeartRadio Music Award, and a Brit Award. Fans speculated that the song was a dig at her ex-boyfriend Liam Hemsworth, considering one of his favorite songs was the iconic Mars’ hit and both songs contained many lyrical similarities. However, not everyone enjoyed the fame and acknowledgement that Cyrus’ song received. Tempo Music Investments (“Tempo”), a leading music investment company, owns a percentage of the U.S. copyright to “When I Was Your Man” and decided to file suit against Cyrus. Tempo claimed that she copied various components from Mars’ melody in her acclaimed song, which is grounds for copyright infringement.
The lawsuit alleges that “Flowers” replicated a multitude of musical elements from Mars’ song, “including the melodic pitch design and sequence of the verse, the connecting base line, certain bars of the chorus, certain theatrical music elements, lyric elements, and specific chord progressions.” Further, the lawsuit accuses all three songwriters (Cyrus, Gregory Hein, and Michael Pollack) of lacking authorization to create a derivative work of “When I Was Your Man”. As a copyright owner of the directly aforementioned song, Tempo asserts that it has lost a significant amount in licensing fees and plans to enforce its intellectual property rights by seeking up to $150,000 per infringement in statutory damages.
In order to prevail in the copyright lawsuit, Tempo will need to demonstrate that there are substantial similarities between the two tracks. In copyright law, substantial similarity is a legal standard used to identify an infringement when there has been an improper appropriation of an author’s work in which a substantial portion of the author’s expression is conveyed in another’s work. For example, the family of Marvin Gaye filed a lawsuit against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke for their song “Blurred Lines” because it was strikingly similar to Gaye’s song “Got to Give It Up”. The jury found Williams and Thicke had infringed the copyright of the late singer’s song, and the judge issued a $5.3 million judgment. In this case, “Flowers” and “When I Was Your Man” may not share identical melodic similarities but they do have similar lyrics that share the same ideas. If Tempo can prove that Cyrus blatantly copied crucial elements of Mars’ tune, they have a compelling argument to support the claim that their intellectual property rights were infringed upon.
On the other hand, Cyrus could have a valid counterargument centered around the doctrine of fair use. Fair use in copyright law allows certain aspects of copyrighted material to be used without permission from the copyright owner in an attempt to promote freedom of expression. There are no direct samples or interpolations between the two singles, leaving only the lyrics as the main notable resemblance. However, Cyrus merely uses Mars’ lyrics as a reference point and instead expresses herself individually in her song, presenting an opposed perspective that contrasts to that of Mars. For instance, Mars proclaims “I should’ve bought you flowers… take you to every party, ‘cause all you wanted to do was dance,” while Cyrus declares “I can buy myself flowers… I can take myself dancing.” While there may be comparable lyrical references, Cyrus can present a solid stance on the matter by arguing that her use of the references was fair according to copyright law.
The ongoing lawsuit between Cyrus and Tempo illustrates the complexities of copyright infringement in the music industry and how this interferes with an array of intellectual property rights. This case not only questions artistic originality among songwriters, but also addresses the rights of copyright owners and what doctrines are best used to determine if a copyright has been infringed upon. If Tempo can efficiently demonstrate that Cyrus and the songwriters copied key elements from “When I Was Your Man” that are substantially similar to key elements in “Flowers”, this could establish a noteworthy precedent for future copyright infringement cases. Nevertheless, if Cyrus can successfully argue that she introduced her own narrative in her song while issuing a retort to Mars’ tune, this could expand the parameters of fair use in music and potentially allow for greater creative freedom while still protecting the intellectual property rights of copyright owners.
Student Bio: Brianna Marquinez is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School. She is a staff member for the Journal of High Technology Law and the Vice President of the Intellectual Property Law Student Association. Brianna received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English with a concentration in Rhetoric and Professional Writing from North Carolina State University in 2022.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
