Miley Cyrus Asks Court to Dismiss ‘Flowers’ Copyright Case, Calling Similarities to Bruno Mars Hit ‘Commonplace’ and Unprotectable

Why It Matters

The case tests the limits of protectable musical expression and could reshape how rights funds litigate against mainstream pop songs, affecting both creators and streaming platforms.

Key Takeaways

• Cyrus seeks dismissal of Tempo's copyright suit
• Pitch sequences deemed unprotectable under extrinsic test
• Lyrics compared as common breakup tropes, not original
• Streaming boost for Mars song shows no market harm

Pulse Analysis

The dispute over Miley Cyrus’s 2023 smash ‘Flowers’ has moved to a pre‑trial motion filed by her counsel, asking Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani to dismiss the copyright infringement case brought by Tempo Secured Music Rights Collateral, LLC. Tempo, a music‑rights fund originally backed by Providence and now controlled by Warner Music Group, alleges that ‘Flowers’ copies protected elements of Bruno Mars’s 2013 ballad ‘When I Was Your Man.’ The complaint unusually names streaming platforms, retailers, Live Nation and Disney as co‑defendants, expanding the fight beyond the artists themselves.

Cyrus’s lawyers argue that the expert analysis relied on by Tempo is fundamentally flawed. They contend that the identified similarities are limited to pitch sequences and generic chord progressions—elements the court has repeatedly held to be unprotectable under the extrinsic test. Likewise, the lyrical comparison hinges on commonplace breakup‑song tropes such as flowers, hands and hours, which lack original expression. The defense also invokes fair‑use doctrine, claiming ‘Flowers’ transforms the male‑centric regret of ‘When I Was Your Man’ into a female‑empowerment anthem, and point to the post‑release streaming surge for Mars’s track as evidence of no market injury.

The outcome could set a benchmark for how music‑rights funds pursue infringement claims against chart‑topping pop hits. If the court dismisses the case, it would reinforce the high bar for protecting melodic and lyrical building blocks, discouraging aggressive litigation that targets standard pop conventions. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Tempo might embolden rights investors to acquire fractional copyrights and seek damages from a broader range of defendants, including streaming services. Industry observers will watch the May 5 hearing closely, as it may reshape the balance between creative freedom and monetization of song elements.