Miley Cyrus cannot escape a copyright lawsuit that she and a slew of other defendants, including her creative partners and music and retail titans like Sony, Apple, IHEARTMEDIA, Wal-Mart, etc. are facing over her hit song, “Flowers.” In a decision on March 18, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has rejected a bid by Cyrus and co. to get the copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Tempo Music Investments, LLC tossed out, clearing the way for Plaintiff Tempo Music Investments’ case to move forward.
The Background in Brief: In its complaint, Tempo Music alleges that Cyrus is on the hook for “undeniable” theft “based on the combination and number of similarities between” her and Mars’ songs. Specifically, Tempo claims that “Flowers” “duplicates numerous melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements” of “When I Was Your Man,” arguing that “‘Flowers’ would not exist without ‘When I Was Your Man,’” and calling the track an unauthorized “derivative work.” In fact, the record label – whose roster includes Bruno Mars, Alicia Keys, Jonas Brothers, Florida Georgia Line, and Ariana Grande, among others – argues that “any fan of Bruno Mars’ ‘When I Was Your Man’ knows that Miley Cyrus’ ‘Flowers’ did not achieve all of that success on its own.”
The complaint goes on to emphasize how “Flowers” copies significant lyrical elements from “When I Was Your Man.” For example, the lawsuit compares Bruno Mars’ lyrics – “That I should have bought you flowers” – to Cyrus’ words – “I can buy myself flowers” – arguing that the lyrical inversion, along with similar harmonic structures, give rise to unauthorized copying.
Rights vs. Ownership and the Implications
Cyrus and the other defendants sought to sidestep Tempo’s claims on the grounds that the company lacks standing to sue under the Copyright Act, namely, because Lawrence was merely a co-owner of the copyright and thus, could not confer exclusive rights to Tempo sufficient to support an infringement action. They argued that only sole owners of exclusive rights – not assignees of a co-owner’s share – could initiate a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
The court rejected this argument, drawing on well-established Ninth Circuit precedent distinguishing between “exclusive rights” under copyright law and “exclusive ownership” of those rights. As the court noted, co-owners of a copyright jointly own the exclusive rights enumerated under 17 U.S.C. § 106, and each co-owner possesses the ability to transfer their undivided share of those rights without consent from fellow co-owners. Importantly, such transferees step into the shoes of the transferor and obtain standing to enforce the copyright.
“Ownership of ‘exclusive rights’ is not to be conflated with ‘exclusive ownership’ of rights,” the court emphasized. It further clarified that the Copyright Act does not restrict the transferability of co-owned rights and, critically, does not bar assignees of such rights from bringing infringement claims against third parties.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The decision underscores the potential viability of music investment firms like Tempo Music enforcing copyrights acquired via catalog purchases. The court’s interpretation in this round highlights the enforceability of fractional ownership rights and could bolster the confidence of financial entities in the value and protection of their music investments. Had the court sided with the defendants, co-owners would effectively have been barred from selling enforceable rights, undermining the secondary market for copyrights and chilling investment in music catalogs – a market that has seen a significant uptick in recent years as artists monetize their back catalogs.
The case is Tempo Music Investments, LLC v. Miley Cyrus, et al., 2:24-CV-07910 (C.D. Cal.).
Share
