Business

Miley Cyrus has filed her first response to a lawsuit claiming her “Flowers” infringes the copyright to Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man,” arguing the case has a “fatal flaw”: That Mars and his other co-writers chose not to sue.
Filed in September, the lawsuit claims the chart-topping hit stole numerous elements from the earlier song and “would not exist” without it. But it wasn’t filed by Mars — the case was lodged by an entity called Tempo Music Investments that bought out the rights of one of his co-writers.

In her first response to the allegations on Wednesday, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a “fatal flaw” that required the outright dismissal of the lawsuit.

Trending on Billboard

“Plaintiff unambiguously [says] that it obtained its claimed rights in the ‘When I Was Your Man’ copyright from only one of that musical composition’s four co-authors,” write Cyrus’ attorneys. “That is a fatal and incurable defect in plaintiff’s claim.”

Repped by Peter Anderson of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, Cyrus argues that Tempo’s acquisition of a “partial interest” from songwriter Philip Lawrence gave the company only “non-exclusive rights” to the song. Under federal copyright law, her lawyers say such limited rights don’t give him “standing” to sue – a crucial requirement for any lawsuit in the U.S. legal system.

“Plaintiff brings this copyright infringement action alone — without any of that musical composition’s co-authors or other owners,” Anderson writes. “Without the consent of the other owners, a grant of rights from just one co-owner does not confer standing.”

Responding those arguments from Cyrus, Tempo Music lead counsel Alex Weingarten told Billboard on Thursday that the motion from her attorneys was “intellectually dishonest” and that the group clearly had standing to pursue the lawsuit.

“They’re seeking to make bogus technical arguments because they don’t have an actual substantive defense to the case,” said Weingarten, an attorney at the firm Willkie Farr. “We’re not an assignee; we’re the owner of the copyright. The law is clear that we have the right to enforce our interest.”

“Flowers,” which spent eight weeks atop the Hot 100, has been linked to “Your Man” since it was released in January 2023. Many fans immediately saw the Cyrus track as an “answer song,” with lyrics that clearly referenced those in the Mars song. The reason, according to internet sleuths, was that “Your Man” was a favorite of Cyrus’ ex-husband Liam Hemsworth – and her allusions were a nod to their divorce.

When “Flowers” was first released, legal experts told Billboard that Cyrus was likely not violating copyrights simply by using similar lyrics to fire back at the earlier song – a time-honored music industry tradition utilized by songs ranging from Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” to countless rap diss records.

But Tempo sued in September, claiming “Flowers” had lifted numerous elements beyond the clap-back lyrics, including “melodic and harmonic material,” “pitch ending pattern,” and “bass-line structure.” The case said it was “undeniable” that Cyrus’ hit “would not exist” if not for “Your Man.”

In Wednesday’s response, attorneys for Cyrus also take aim at the substance of those allegations, arguing that the two songs show “striking differences in melody, chords, other musical elements, and words.” They say the songs might share a “few” similarities but “none of which is protected by copyright.”

“The songwriter defendants categorically deny copying, and the allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks,” Anderson writes.

But the filing mostly left those arguments for another day, instead focusing on the requirement that only “exclusive” copyright owners can file infringement lawsuits – a rule that Cyrus’ lawyers exists for a “simple” reason.

“In the case of joint works, the co-authors are joint owners of the exclusive copyright rights, each owning a non-exclusive interest in the undivided whole,” they write. “As a result, a single co-author of a copyright interest, acting alone, cannot assign or license exclusive rights because those rights also are owned by the assignor’s or licensor’s co-authors.”

Donald Trump has reached a settlement with Eddy Grant over how much the president-elect must pay for using “Electric Avenue” without permission in a 2020 campaign video.
Two months after a federal judge ruled that Trump infringed the copyright to the 1982 hit by featuring it in the video, the same judge issued an order Wednesday saying the two sides had “settled this action” and that the case would be “discontinued.”

The settlement avoids the need for further litigation figure out how much Trump would need to pay Grant in damages, which had been left undecided by the September ruling. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed in court filings, and neither side immediately responded to request for comment.

Trending on Billboard

Grant sued Trump in 2020 after the then-president used his 1982 hit in a social media video attacking Joe Biden. Grant said he reacted with “dismay” when he began receiving inquiries asking if he had approved the Republican candidate’s use of his music.

Trump’s lawyers argued back that the video was shielded under copyright’s fair use doctrine, which allows for the “transformative” re-use of protected works in certain situations. But in September’s ruling, Judge John G. Koeltl sharply rejected that argument.

“In this case, the video has a very low degree of transformativeness, if any at all,” the judge wrote. “The video is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad.”

Trump repeatedly faced blowback during the 2024 election from artists who don’t want him to use their music. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, ABBA and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out or threatened action, and the White Stripes and the estate of Isaac Hayes have both filed lawsuits against him and his campaign.

Four years earlier, Grant filed a similar case over Trump’s “wrongful and willful” use of “Electric Avenue,” a funky, reggae-infused track about the 1981 Brixton riot, named for a road running through that London neighborhood. The song reached No. 2 on the Hot 100 in the summer of 1983 and ultimately spent 22 weeks on the chart.

The video at issue, shared by Trump on X, featured a red “Trump” train outrunning a handcar driven by Biden, as audio clips of Biden’s speeches played above Grant’s 1982 hit. Grant’s attorneys said the campaign had refused to remove the clip even after they were warned — meaning that Trump was acting as if he was “above the law.”

Trump’s attorneys argued that the video had “transformed Grant’s original conception of ‘Electric Avenue’ as a protest against social conditions into a colorful attack on the character and personality traits of a rival political figure.” But in September’s decision, the judge was entirely unswayed by that defense — saying that it would only count as fair use if Trump had used the song to attack Grant, not Biden.

“The animation does not use ‘Electric Avenue’ as a vehicle to deliver its satirical message, and it makes no effort to poke fun at the song or Grant,” Judge Koeltl wrote, quoting directly from his earlier decision.

The ruling in September held that Trump and his campaign were legally liable for copyright infringement, but it left undecided the amount he would ultimately need pay Grant in damages.

California prosecutors are flatly rejecting claims made by Tory Lanez’s legal team that the gun he allegedly used to shoot Megan Thee Stallion is “missing,” calling the accusations about vanished evidence “demonstrably false” and “troubling.”
In a brief filed Monday (Nov. 18) in a California appeals court, the state attorney general’s office fired back at a recent so-called habeas corpus petition filed by Lanez’s attorneys — one of several forms of appeal he has filed seeking to overturn his felony convictions over the 2020 shooting.

In their brief last month, Lanez’s lawyers claimed that key pieces of evidence — the gun used in the shooting and bullet fragments removed from Megan’s foot — had not been made available to defense attorneys, violating the singer’s constitutional right to due process.

Trending on Billboard

But in this week’s response, the government said that simply wasn’t true.

“Without providing any documentary evidence or a declaration from either habeas counsel or a custodian of evidence for the Los Angeles Police Department, petitioner simply asserts that the firearm and bullet fragments have not been preserved,” prosecutors wrote. “Petitioner’s failure … is especially troubling in this case because the factual assertions are demonstrably false.”

The filing cited a sworn declaration by an LAPD officer that the department “still has custody of the firearm and the firearm’s magazine, as well as the casings and fragments.”

Attorneys for Lanez did not immediately return a request for comment.

Lanez (Daystar Peterson) was convicted in December 2022 on three felony counts over the violent 2020 incident, in which he shot at the feet of Megan (real name Megan Pete) during an argument following a pool party at Kylie Jenner’s house in the Hollywood Hills. According to prosecutors, when Megan got out of the vehicle and began walking away, Lanez shouted “Dance, bitch!” and fired a gun at her feet. In August 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Lanez has appealed his convictions to California’s Court of Appeal, arguing that the judge allowed improper testimony and evidence, resulting in a “a miscarriage of justice.” He’s also filed two so-called habeas corpus petitions, a more drastic legal method for challenging a criminal conviction.

In the latest petition, Lanez’s attorney claimed his right to due process had been violated by the government’s “failure  to produce and preserve evidence.” They claimed that because the gun and the fragments were missing, they were “unable to conduct further testing” that might help prove his innocence, like searching for fingerprints or DNA of other possible shooters.

In Monday’s response, prosecutors argued that not only was the evidence available for re-testing but that doing so would not help Lanez overturn his conviction.

“The prosecution did not even rely on the DNA results in arguing petitioner’s guilt,” the state wrote. “Under these circumstances, it is inconceivable that DNA testing could undermine the entire prosecution case and point unerringly to innocence or reduced culpability, as is required to establish a claim of actual innocence.”