The world of music is no stranger to legal disputes, especially when it comes to allegations of copyright infringement. One of the most recent controversies in the entertainment industry involves pop sensation Miley Cyrus, who has been accused of copying Bruno Mars’ iconic song “When I Was Your Man” in her 2023 hit “Flowers.” However, what makes this case particularly intriguing is that Bruno Mars is not the plaintiff in the lawsuit—it’s a company called Tempo Music Investments, which owns part of the copyright to Mars’ song. This lawsuit has sparked widespread debate about copyright law, artistic expression, and the boundaries between creative influence and infringement.
This blog will break down the details of the case, analyze the legal framework governing copyright infringement in music, and explore how the courts may approach this high-profile dispute.
Overview of the Allegations
In early 2023, Miley Cyrus released her hit single “Flowers,” which was quickly seen by fans and critics alike as a song about self-empowerment, perhaps directed at her ex-husband, Liam Hemsworth. However, what began as speculation about the personal themes in her song has turned into a legal battle. The lawsuit claims that “Flowers” contains significant similarities to Bruno Mars’s “When I Was Your Man,”, particularly in the lyrical content and emotional tone of the songs.
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of key lyrics from both songs:
- Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers”:
- “I can buy myself flowers, write my name in the sand”
- “I can take myself dancing, I can hold my own hand”
- Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man”:
- “I should have bought you flowers and held your hand”
- “Should have gave you all my hours when I had the chance to take you to every party because all you wanted to do was dance”
While the lyrics share thematic elements, particularly regarding flowers and dancing, the songs have different musical styles, tempos, and moods. This begs the question: Does lyrical similarity constitute copyright infringement? And if so, how do courts determine whether a song has crossed the line from influence to infringement?
Legal Framework for Copyright Infringement in Music
What Constitutes Copyright Infringement?
Under U.S. law, specifically the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright protection extends to “original works of authorship,” including musical compositions and sound recordings. To establish a case for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove two key elements:
- Access: The defendant had access to the plaintiff’s copyrighted work.
- Substantial Similarity: The defendant’s work is substantially similar to the plaintiff’s work.
In the case of Miley Cyrus and Bruno Mars, there is no question of access—Cyrus, like most of the world, would have been familiar with Mars’ chart-topping ballad “When I Was Your Man,” given its popularity. The crux of the case, therefore, will likely hinge on whether “Flowers” is “substantially similar” to Mars’ song.
How Courts Analyze Substantial Similarity
Determining substantial similarity in music copyright cases can be subjective, as it involves evaluating both the musical composition and the lyrics. Courts typically employ two tests to analyze similarity:
- Extrinsic Test: This is an objective test that looks at specific elements of the song, such as melody, harmony, rhythm, and structure. Musical experts often testify to identify whether the songs share similar components.
- Intrinsic Test: This is a subjective test, where the court asks whether an “ordinary listener” would perceive the songs as being substantially similar. In most cases, this is left to the jury, which is made up of individuals with no special expertise in music.
In recent years, courts have seen a rise in copyright infringement claims in the music industry, with varying outcomes. For example, Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke famously lost a copyright infringement case for their song “Blurred Lines,” which was found to have borrowed too heavily from Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.” On the other hand, Ed Sheeran successfully defended himself in a similar case, showing that musical structures can be shared across different songs without constituting infringement.
The Case Against Miley Cyrus: A Deeper Legal Analysis
Now that we understand the legal framework, let’s break down how the case against Miley Cyrus might play out.
Access to Bruno Mars Song
As mentioned earlier, access is not likely to be a contentious issue. Bruno Mars’ song “When I Was Your Man” was a global hit, and there’s no doubt that Cyrus would have been exposed to it, especially given the publicized detail that her ex-husband, Liam Hemsworth, was reportedly a fan of the song. While this fact doesn’t directly prove infringement, it does satisfy the first requirement of access.
Is “Flowers” Substantially Similar to “When I Was Your Man”?
The second, and more challenging, aspect of the case is determining whether “Flowers” is substantially similar to “When I Was Your Man.” This will likely involve a comparison of the lyrics and musical composition of both songs.
- Lyrical Similarity: As shown in the comparison of the lyrics above, both songs discuss themes of regret and self-empowerment, particularly through the metaphor of flowers and dancing. However, the lyrics are not identical. Cyrus’ lyrics focus on self-reliance and independence, while Mars’ lyrics are about romantic regret and wishing he had treated his partner better. The court will need to decide whether these similarities rise to the level of infringement or whether they fall under the category of creative inspiration.
- Musical Similarity: According to legal expert Whitney Trailer, who spoke about the case, the two songs don’t sound alike musically. One is a fast-paced, upbeat pop song (Cyrus’ “Flowers”), while the other is a slow ballad (Mars’ “When I Was Your Man”). In copyright cases, substantial similarity is often easier to prove when the musical compositions are alike in melody, rhythm, or chord progression. However, Trailer pointed out that in this case, the musical compositions seem distinct, which may weaken the plaintiff’s argument.
The Ordinary Listener Test
One of the most important aspects of this case will be the application of the “ordinary listener test.” This test asks whether an average person, without any musical expertise, would perceive the songs as being substantially similar. In the jury’s eyes, will the thematic overlap and lyrical echoes be enough to conclude that Cyrus copied Mars’ song, or will the distinct differences in musical composition sway the decision in her favor?
The Role of “Clap Back” Defense
A significant aspect of Cyrus’ defense may be the argument that “Flowers” is a creative response or “clap back” to her ex-husband’s love for Mars’ song. In the music industry, it’s not uncommon for artists to reference or respond to other songs, often as part of a broader cultural or personal conversation. This could be seen as a form of artistic dialogue rather than an act of copying.
According to Trailer, this defense could hold weight, especially if Cyrus can argue that her song was a deliberate play on the themes in “When I Was Your Man” rather than an attempt to replicate its success. In copyright law, courts recognize that some level of creative borrowing or influence is inevitable, particularly in an industry where artists often build on each other’s work.
De Minimis Defense
Another potential defense for Miley Cyrus is the concept of de minimis use. In copyright law, this refers to the idea that a small or insignificant amount of copying may not constitute infringement. If Cyrus can argue that the similarities between the two songs are minor and do not affect the overall originality of “Flowers,” the court may rule in her favor.
De minimis defenses have been used in other music copyright cases. For example, in the case involving Katy Perry’s song “Dark Horse,” the court initially ruled against her, but the decision was later overturned on appeal, with the court finding that the copied elements were too minimal to constitute infringement.
The Broader Implications for the Music Industry
This lawsuit is part of a larger trend in the music industry, where copyright infringement claims have become more common in recent years. Many artists have voiced concerns about the growing frequency of these lawsuits, arguing that they stifle creativity and make it difficult to produce original music without the fear of legal repercussions.
Several high-profile musicians have called for changes to copyright law, particularly the Copyright Act of 1976, which governs these cases. Some have filed amicus briefs in support of reforms, urging Congress to create clearer guidelines for what constitutes infringement in music. One of the main challenges in these cases is the subjective nature of the “substantial similarity” test, which leaves much of the decision-making in the hands of juries who may not fully understand the nuances of music composition.
Conclusion: Does Tempo Music Investments Have a Case?
Ultimately, the outcome of this lawsuit will depend on how the court interprets the similarities between Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers” and Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man.” While there are some notable lyrical parallels, the differences in musical style and composition may work in Cyrus’ favor.
From a legal perspective, this case highlights the complexities of copyright law in the music industry. As artists continue to build on each other’s work, the line between inspiration and infringement remains difficult to define. Whether Tempo Music Investments can convince the court that “Flowers” crosses that line will be a key question in the months to come.
In the meantime, this case serves as a reminder of the legal risks that musicians face when creating new work, especially in a world where copyright infringement lawsuits are increasingly common. For Miley Cyrus, her defense will likely focus on the originality of her song, the differences in musical composition, and the artistic intent behind “Flowers” as a response to personal experiences.
With high stakes on both sides, this lawsuit is shaping up to be a pivotal case in the evolving landscape of music copyright law.
The lawsuit claims that Miley Cyrus’ song “Flowers” is substantially similar to Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man,” particularly in the lyrics and themes. The plaintiffs allege copyright infringement, arguing that Cyrus copied the core elements of Mars’ song.
Miley Cyrus may argue that the similarities between “Flowers” and “When I Was Your Man” are minimal and fall under the de minimis use defense. She might also claim that her song was an artistic response rather than a direct copy, emphasizing differences in musical composition.
The outcome will depend on whether the court finds substantial similarities between the songs in both lyrics and composition. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, Miley Cyrus could face damages for copyright infringement, but if her defense prevails, the case could be dismissed.
