Miley Cyrus vs. Tempo Music: A Legal Battle That Could Reshape Copyright Law

Tempo Music Investments has filed a lawsuit against pop star Miley Cyrus, alleging that her hit song “Flowers” copies elements of Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man.” Cyrus, however, argues that the case should be dismissed based on a legal technicality. This dispute, currently unfolding in California, could have significant implications for copyright law in the United States, particularly for co-owned works. Here’s what you need to know.

Tempo Music Investments purchased the copyright share of Phillip Lawrence, one of the co-writers of “When I Was Your Man.” They claim that “Flowers” infringes on their rights by copying key elements of Mars’ original song. In legal terms, they are accusing Cyrus of copyright infringement, which can result in substantial financial penalties and reputational damage for the artist if proven true. Tempo’s lawsuit highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property in a highly competitive music industry where hit songs can generate millions in revenue.

Cyrus’ legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Tempo lacks the legal standing to sue. They point to Ninth Circuit court rulings that limit the ability of co-owners to pursue copyright infringement cases independently. According to Cyrus, because Tempo purchased only one co-writer’s share of the song without the explicit consent of the other co-owners, their rights are non-exclusive. This means they cannot independently sue for infringement under current legal interpretations in the Ninth Circuit, which governs California.

Cyrus’ lawyers argue that this limitation is consistent with earlier cases, such as the Sybersound Records and Tresóna Multimedia rulings. In these precedents, the court decided that partial ownership does not grant the exclusive rights necessary to bring a lawsuit unless all original owners agre

If the court sides with Cyrus, it could significantly impact how copyright law is applied in the U.S., especially regarding co-owned works. Lawyers warn that this could undermine the licensing and enforcement of shared copyrights, making it harder for creators and investors to protect their intellectual property. For example, it may discourage investments in fractional shares of copyrights, which are common in the music industry.

Such a ruling could also create inconsistencies between U.S. judicial circuits. While the Ninth Circuit limits the rights of co-owners, other circuits allow them to sue independently. A decision favoring Cyrus could lead to a split in legal interpretations, potentially prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and clarify the law. This would have far-reaching implications for international companies and creators who deal with American copyright law.

This case highlights the complexities of copyright law, especially for those working in industries where collaboration is common. Understanding your rights as a creator or investor is essential to ensuring your intellectual property remains protected.

If you’re dealing with copyright issues or need expert legal advice, don’t hesitate to contact our team of intellectual property specialists. We’re here to help you navigate these complex legal landscapes and safeguard your creative work!

Source: Miley Cyrus Tests Copyright Transfer Rules in „Flowers" Lawsuit. 14. leden 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/miley-cyrus-tests-copyright-transfer-rules-in-flowers-lawsuit.

Photo: Steve Krysak, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons