A federal judge has pushed back against Miley Cyrus’ attempt to dismiss a copyright infringement lawsuit over her Grammy-winning hit “Flowers.” At a hearing in Los Angeles on Monday, U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson indicated that plaintiff Tempo Music Investments has sufficient standing to proceed with the case.
Lawsuit Over ‘Flowers’ Moves Forward
Tempo Music Investments, which purchased a fractional share of Bruno Mars’ 2013 hit When I Was Your Man from co-writer Philip Lawrence, alleges that Flowers copies key melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements. The lawsuit, filed in September 2024, claims infringement on copyright grounds.
Cyrus and her co-writers moved to dismiss the case last November, arguing that Tempo lacks standing to sue. Their motion asserts that while co-authors can sell their financial interests in a song, they cannot transfer their legal right to sue for infringement without the consent of all co-owners. Tempo disputes this claim, stating that copyright law allows rights holders to freely transfer their interests, including enforcement rights.
Judge Questions Cyrus’ Defense
During the hearing, Judge Pregerson challenged Cyrus’ argument, questioning why anyone would buy a fractional share in a song if they couldn’t enforce it. “If someone wants to buy what someone owns, they should also have the right to enforce that ownership,” Pregerson stated. He emphasized that restricting enforcement rights could devalue copyrights and disrupt the music industry.
Tempo’s attorney, Alex Weingarten, argued that prohibiting buyers from enforcing copyright protections would upend the industry and contradict the Copyright Act’s intent. Judge Pregerson appeared to agree, highlighting scenarios where heirs or estates could be unfairly stripped of enforcement rights.
Legal Precedents and Industry Impact
Weingarten cited legal precedents, including Davis v. Blige (2007) and Corbello v. DeVito (2015), which affirm that copyright co-owners can sell exclusive interests without co-owner approval. In contrast, Cyrus’ legal team referenced Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp. (2008) and Tresóna Multimedia, LLC v. Burbank High School Vocal Music Association (2020), which require unanimous co-owner consent for enforcement.
Cyrus’ attorney, Peter Anderson, argued that while new owners can enforce copyrights, they must first obtain the agreement of all co-owners. However, Judge Pregerson appeared skeptical of this position and has taken the motion under review before making a final ruling.
What’s at Stake for the Music Industry
Legal experts suggest that allowing the lawsuit to proceed could ultimately benefit Cyrus and her co-defendants, including Sony Music Publishing, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing. Aaron Moss, a copyright attorney at Greenberg Glusker, noted that music industry professionals frequently own fractional shares of songs and need the ability to enforce those rights independently.
“The judge’s focus on the practical implications of denying standing makes sense,” Moss told Rolling Stone. “If fractional owners couldn’t enforce their rights, their ownership would be significantly devalued.”
Moss also suggested that while Tempo’s lawsuit should proceed, Flowers likely qualifies as a fair use “answer song” responding to When I Was Your Man. He described the Ninth Circuit’s approach to copyright standing as “muddled” and argued that the case exposes ongoing legal uncertainties surrounding fractional ownership in music.
Judge Pregerson has yet to issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss, leaving the fate of the lawsuit uncertain.
Comments are closed.