Miley Cyrus ‘Flowers’ Copyright Lawsuit

The Miley Cyrus “Flowers” copyright lawsuit is a high-profile legal dispute that emerged in September 2024, when Miley Cyrus was accused of copyright infringement over her 2023 hit single “Flowers.” The allegations claim that “Flowers” unlawfully copies significant portions of Bruno Mars’ 2013 ballad “When I Was Your Man.” The lawsuit is brought by Tempo Music Investments, a firm that acquired partial rights to Mars’ song from co-writer Philip Lawrence, making it one of the most notable copyright cases in recent music industry history.

Background and Origins of the Lawsuit

Tempo Music Investments filed the lawsuit in September 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The firm alleges that “Flowers” duplicates “numerous melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements” of “When I Was Your Man.” Tempo contends that Miley Cyrus’ track is an unauthorized derivative work and that it would not exist without the prior song’s influence.

Notably, Bruno Mars and Philip Lawrence, the original co-writers of “When I Was Your Man,” are not plaintiffs themselves; Tempo Music Investments holds the rights to prosecute infringement. The suit highlights particular similarities in the lyrics, including Cyrus’ line “I can buy myself flowers” closely paralleling Mars’ “that I should have bought you flowers.”

Key Legal Claims and Allegations

• Copyright Infringement: Tempo alleges Miley Cyrus and her collaborators unlawfully reproduced protected elements of “When I Was Your Man,” infringing on Tempo’s exclusive rights.
• Unauthorized Derivative Work: The complaint claims “Flowers” is derivative of Mars’ song and was released and distributed without permission.
• Injunctive Relief and Damages: Tempo seeks to halt distribution and public performance of “Flowers,” alongside monetary damages for the infringement.

Miley Cyrus’ Defense and Litigation Proceedings

In November 2024, Miley Cyrus and co-defendants filed motions to dismiss on procedural and substantive grounds. They argued that Tempo lacked standing to sue because Philip Lawrence had transferred only financial interests, not full litigation rights. They also contested the claim that “Flowers” infringed, asserting the shared elements between songs involve unprotected ideas, common chord progressions, and lyrical phrases typical in music.

However, in March 2025, a federal judge denied Cyrus’ motion to dismiss, specifying a legal misunderstanding about copyright ownership rights. The judge ruled that Tempo, as a co-owner stepping into Lawrence’s position, has standing to bring the lawsuit independently of other co-authors.

This ruling cleared the way for discovery and potential trial to examine the merits of Tempo’s infringement claims more thoroughly. Both sides continue to prepare their cases, including musicological analysis, witness testimony, and expert reports.

Industry and Cultural Context

The lawsuit highlights ongoing tensions in music copyright law between protecting original creators and acknowledging creative inspiration or choreography common within artistic expression. Many artists craft songs with similar themes, chords, and lyrical motifs, raising complex questions around derivative works and fair use.

Miley Cyrus herself has previously faced copyright claims—such as a 2013 dispute over similarities between “We Can’t Stop” and another song—which ended in settlements. The “Flowers” case represents a continuation of the legal challenges prominent artists face as digital distribution amplifies scrutiny.

Bruno Mars, notably, has not publicly supported or opposed the case; industry observers suggest he acknowledges creative overlap as part of the musical landscape but respects legal processes on rights enforcement.

Frequently Asked Questions About Miley Cyrus ‘Flowers’ Lawsuit

What is Tempo Music Investments’ role?

Tempo owns partial copyright interests from co-writer Philip Lawrence of “When I Was Your Man” and is legally authorized to sue for infringement on behalf of these rights.

Is Bruno Mars involved in the lawsuit?

No. Bruno Mars is not named as a plaintiff and has not publicly taken a position on the lawsuit.

What are Miley Cyrus’ main defenses?

Miley’s team argues that the plaintiff lacks standing, the case involves common musical elements not protectable under copyright, and that “Flowers” is an original work.

What was the court’s ruling on dismissal?

A judge denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.

What could happen if Miley Cyrus loses?

Potential injunctions could limit distribution and performance of “Flowers,” and monetary damages could be awarded for copyright infringement.

Conclusion

The copyright lawsuit over Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers” underscores critical issues in modern music creation and rights enforcement. It brings attention to the complexities artists and the music industry face balancing inspiration, originality, and legal protection. While the lawsuit progresses, it symbolizes the evolving landscape of intellectual property in an age of digital music proliferation and heightened scrutiny.

For fans, musicians, and industry stakeholders alike, the case is a vital reminder of the legal consequences tied to artistic creation, collaboration, and distribution. As the court system carefully evaluates the claims and defenses, this high-profile dispute may help clarify copyright boundaries affecting many contemporary artists.