In January 2023, Miley Cyrus’s pop anthem “Flowers” achieved tremendous commercial success, rapidly climbing the charts and reaching over a billion streams within 112 days, making headlines for its possible references to her ex-husband Liam Hemsworth. However, rather than a personal inquiry from Hemsworth, the song found itself at the center of a copyright lawsuit initiated by Tempo Music Investments, LLC, a company focused on acquiring music rights. The clash sparked curiosity and concern in the music industry, highlighting the complexities surrounding copyright issues as they intersect with artistic expression and market success.
The foundation of Tempo’s legal claim centers on the song “When I Was Your Man,” a hit by Bruno Mars co-written by Philip Lawrence. After acquiring Lawrence’s catalog, Tempo moved swiftly to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against Cyrus on September 16, 2024. The complaint alleges that “Flowers” bears significant resemblance to Mars’s track in terms of melody, harmony, and lyrical structure, suggesting that Cyrus’s work constitutes an unauthorized derivative piece. Tempo has named multiple parties in this lawsuit, including co-writers Gregory Hein and Michael Pollack, as well as various associated music and streaming companies, indicating a broad and potentially complex legal battle.
Tempo’s complaint emphasizes the sonic similarities between “Flowers” and “When I Was Your Man,” asserting that both songs share not only melodies and chord progressions but also common structural elements, particularly in their choruses. The suit references Billboard’s commentary, acknowledging that even a casual listener might recognize the overlaps in musical composition. Central to the complaint is the assertion that Cyrus had ample exposure to Mars’ work, particularly during events like the 2013 iHeartRadio Music Festival, indicating that she may have been influenced by or aware of the original song, an important factor for establishing a copyright claim.
In response, Cyrus’s legal team has challenged the validity of Tempo’s lawsuit on several grounds. They argue that the complaint is deeply flawed because it fails to include Mars or his co-writers, which is critical since Tempo reportedly acquired only a fraction of the ownership over the song. Cyrus contends that without the co-authors involved, Tempo lacks the standing necessary to pursue the infringement claim. Additionally, her defense posits that any perceived similarities between the two works are simply elements commonly found in music rather than unique creative expressions that could breach copyright laws.
Should Tempo’s Motion to Dismiss be unsuccessful, the company faces significant hurdles in proving its claims. This includes demonstrating substantial similarities between the tracks and showing that Cyrus had access to the original before creating “Flowers.” Proving damages, particularly with a gap of ten years between the release of the two songs, could also pose a formidable challenge. If Tempo manages to establish liability, they may only be able to recover profits earned from Cyrus’s work that could be directly attributed to any infringement, a process that could complicate financial restitution beyond initial expectations.
Ultimately, the unfolding legal battle between Cyrus and Tempo serves as an essential case study within the music industry, illustrating the intricate relationship between copyright law and creative artistry. As the music landscape continues to evolve, artists must navigate a complex web of inspiration versus originality, often confronting the ongoing tensions that arise when established intellectual property rights intersect with contemporary music production. The outcome of this case could have lasting implications across the industry, signaling whether creativity can flourish without excessive legal scrutiny or if the fear of litigation will stifle artistic innovation in the future.
