“Flowers” by Miley Cyrus and Copyright: A Debate over Originality and Inspiration
By Julieta Perez Espinosa and Mariana Guzman
Miley Cyrus faces a legal conflict over alleged plagiarism in her 2023 hit single, “Flowers,” which, according to the accusation, contains numerous similarities to Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man.” This case raises a debate about the boundaries of musical inspiration and respect for copyright.
The lawsuit was filed by Tempo Music Investments, the copyright holder of Bruno Mars’ 2013 song “When I Was Your Man,” which alleges that Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers” presents a melodic similarity that goes beyond mere coincidence, meaning an unauthorized derivative work.
According to the plaintiff, various elements of Mars’ song were allegedly reproduced without authorization, including melodic, harmonic, and lyrical aspects, such as the bass line, melodic sequences, and specific chord progressions.
Tempo Music claims to have acquired part of the copyright of Bruno Mars’ song through Philip Lawrence, one of the co-writers alongside Mars, Ari Levine, and Andrew Wyatt. Although Bruno Mars is not a plaintiff in this lawsuit, the co-writers of “Flowers,” Gregory Hein and Michael Pollack, are named as co-defendants, along with distributors like Sony Music Publishing, Apple, Target, and Walmart.
The plaintiff seeks financial compensation and the cease of the reproduction, distribution, and public performance of “Flowers” in violation of the rights.
The analysis of this case centers on whether Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers” truly constitutes a derivative work of “When I Was Your Man” or if it is an independent creation with its own characteristics. Essentially, for a work to be considered derivative, it must have a substantial dependence on the original, such as the identifiable use of its melody, lyrics, or distinctive style.
This raises the debate about whether the use of similar melodies and lyrics constitutes inspiration or copying, in the eyes of the law. Undoubtedly, this distinction will require a technical evaluation and in-depth expert´s analysis.
In Argentina, Intellectual Property Law No. 11,723 grants the owner of a work exclusive rights over its use, exploitation, and reproduction, including the power to authorize or prohibit derivative works. Such works are those created based on a previous work and require prior permission from the rights holder, such as translations, adaptations, and arrangements, including those involving substantial reinterpretations or transformations.
Our legislation states that modifying a work without the owner’s consent may constitute copyright infringement. In this context, an unauthorized derivative work – such as “Flowers” could be, if the alleged similarity is confirmed – may be subject to copyright infringement claims, including precautionary measures or compensation for damages.
Internationally, treaties like the Berne Convention and agreements from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which Argentina has ratified, protect derivative works and require a balance between creative freedom and copyright respect.
This conflict between Miley Cyrus and Tempo Music highlights current challenges in copyright within the music industry. In a sector where inspiration from previous works is common, it is essential for legal frameworks to clearly define the boundaries between legitimate inspiration and copyright infringement. The ruling of Los Angeles court will be crucial in outlining these limits and may set an important precedent if it reaches that stage.
For further information please contact jpespinosa@ojambf.com or mguzman@ojambf.com
