Copyright
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit claiming Sam Smith and Normani stole key elements of their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger” from an earlier track, ruling that the case was tossed out too soon and should have been decided by a jury trial.
The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversed a 2023 ruling by a lower judge that had dismissed the case – a copyright lawsuit claiming Smith and Normani ripped off a little-known earlier song called “Dancing with Strangers.”
At the time, the trial judge said the two songs were simply not similar enough to constitute copyright infringement. But in a ruling Tuesday, the appeals court said a jury of their peers might have decided the case differently if they’d been given the chance.
Trending on Billboard
A “reasonable jury” could potentially decide that the hooks of the two tracks share the same combination of musical elements “in substantial amounts,” the appeals court wrote, including lyrics, “metric placement” and the same “melodic contour.”
Though the two songs also have key differences, the appeals court said a trial judge cannot simply pick a winner if there are conflicting reports from musical experts: “Under that approach, expert testimony would not be required at all.”
The ruling is a loss for Smith and Normani, but is also a worrying decision for any artist hit with a song-theft copyright lawsuit. If such cases must be litigated all the way to trial to be decided, they become dramatically more expensive for defendants, and give accusers more leverage to secure settlements from artists wary of protracted litigation.
Released in 2019, “Dancing with a Stranger” peaked at No. 7 on the Hot 100 chart, making it one of Smith’s biggest hits and Normani’s peak spot on the chart. The song, released on Smith’s third studio album Love Goes, ultimately spent 45 weeks on the chart.
In March 2022, the two artists were sued over the track by songwriters Jordan Vincent, Christopher Miranda and Rosco Banlaoi, who claimed that the 2019 hit song was “strikingly similar” to their own “Dancing” — and that it was “beyond any real doubt” that their song had been copied.
A year later, the case was dismissed by Judge Wesley L. Hsu, who ruled that the two songs were not “substantially similar” – the legal threshold for proving copyright infringement. He granted Smith and Normani summary judgment, meaning he ended the case without a trial because he believed a jury could not validly side with the plaintiffs.
But in Tuesday’s decision, the Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling, saying that so long as there is “sufficient disagreement” among the musicologists retained by each side, then case “must be submitted” to a jury.
The ruling will send the case back to Judge Hsu for more litigation, including a potential jury trial.
Warner Music Group has filed a lawsuit against Crumbl, the Utah-based cookie company, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed on April 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, accuses Crumbl of using WMG’s copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions in its social media marketing campaigns without proper licenses.
Crumbl has built its brand primarily through social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, often featuring popular music tracks in its promotional content. WMG claims that Crumbl has misappropriated at least 159 sound recordings and musical compositions in its videos. These tracks, which include works by artists such as Lizzo, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, are said to be key to Crumbl’s marketing strategy. Many of these videos rely heavily on music, with little to no dialogue, highlighting the central role of the unlicensed tracks in Crumbl’s advertising efforts.
WMG’s complaint provides several examples of this alleged misappropriation. For instance, Crumbl’s TikTok video promoting its blueberry cheesecake features the unauthorized use of “Blueberry Faygo” by Lil Mosey, the label said. Another video promoting Crumbl’s yellow sugar cookie, while also advertising the film Minions: The Rise of Gru, uses Coldplay’s “Yellow” without permission. A video promoting a butter cake cookie features — you guessed it — BTS’ “Butter.” Additionally, there’s a video featuring Crumbl employees dancing to K CAMP’s “Lottery (Renegade),” and Crumbl even referenced music used in some videos, such as a TikTok post featuring Lizzo’s “Juice,” with the caption repeating the song’s lyrics.
Trending on Billboard
Other songs that WMG contends were infringed upon by Crumbl include Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It),” Bruno Mars’ “Locked Out of Heaven,” Dua Lipa’s “Levitating,” George Michael’s “Careless Whisper,” Gwen Stefani’s “Holdback Girl,” Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know,” Taylor Swift’s “All Too Well,” Miley Cyrus’ “Party in the U.S.A.,” Missy Elliott’s “Get Ur Freak On,” Mariah Carey’s “Fantasy” and dozens more.
WMG asserts that Crumbl’s actions constitute direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The plaintiffs argue that Crumbl, which has over a thousand stores nationwide and is reportedly exploring a sale, according to Reuters, should have been aware of the need to secure licenses for the music used in its promotional materials. Despite this, Crumbl allegedly persisted in using WMG’s music without authorization, even after similar cases, including separate lawsuits against Bang Energy by Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, brought attention to the overarching issue.
The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and a permanent injunction to prevent Crumbl from any further infringement. The company is also pursuing statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringed work, potentially totaling nearly $24 million if the court awards the maximum penalty for all 159 cited works.
This legal action underscores the music industry’s ongoing efforts to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age, particularly as brands increasingly leverage popular music in social media marketing. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how companies approach the use of copyrighted music in online promotions.
WMG is being represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Workman Nydegger.
Crumbl has not responded to Billboard‘s request for comment on WMG’s lawsuit.
A TikTok user who says she created the viral “Apple dance” to a Charli XCX song is suing Roblox over allegations that the company violated copyright law by selling her dance moves as an “emote.”
In a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Kelley Heyer says the online game platform used the dance – a viral sensation set to Charli’s “Apple” that was emulated by scores of celebrities and influencers – in a version of its “Dress To Impress” game that featured the singer Brat singer.
Though Roblox allegedly reached out to negotiate a license, Heyer says the talks never led to a deal – and that the company simply used her dance moves without permission.
Trending on Billboard
“Roblox proudly advertises that its platform allows creators to ‘create, scale and monetize,’” her lawyers write. “Yet, it has prevented Ms. Heyer from the crucial monetization of her work on the Roblox platform.”
Charli XCX is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
Numerous copyright lawsuits have been filed in recent years over viral dance moves featured in online video games. Alfonso Ribeiro, who played Carlton on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, sued Fortnite owner Epic Games over the use of his heavily-memed “Carlton dance” as an emote, as did the mother of Russell Horning, the so-called Backpack Kid who helped popularize the viral “Floss” dance.
For years, those cases faced skeptical judges who questioned whether simple dance moves were covered by copyright law. In 2020, a federal judge sided with Epic and tossed out a case filed by two former college basketball players over their “running man” dance. But in 2023 a federal appeals court issued a first-of-its-kind ruling reviving such a lawsuit against Epic Games, in which a panel of judges said they “see no reason to treat choreography differently” from longer dance routines.
In her lawsuit, Heyer says her dance was clearly protected by copyright law – and that Epic and Netflix have both struck licensing deals with her to use it. She says Roblox earned $123,000 in sales from selling the dance to users, but has refused to pay her any of it.
“Roblox has substantially benefitted and profited from its unlawful infringement of Ms. Heyer’s copyright and other uninvited misappropriations of Ms. Heyer’s intellectual property and proprietary rights in the Apple Dance,” her lawyers write.
In a statement responding to the lawsuit, Roblox denied any wrongdoing: “Roblox takes the protection of intellectual property very seriously and is committed to protecting intellectual property rights of independent developers and creators to brands and artists both on and off the platform,” the company said. “Roblox is confident in its position and the propriety of its dealings in this matter and looks forward to responding in court.”
Earlier this year, the Copyright Office opened a notice of inquiry (NOI) into U.S. performing rights organizations (PROs) – asking the music industry, venues and broadcasters that hold performance licenses to weigh in on whether or not they should face any new reform. Triggered by a so-called “proliferation” of new PROs in the market, and PROs alleged “lack of transparency,” it’s shaping up to be one of the most important issues facing the music publishing business this year. On Friday (April 11), the industry’s chance to submit comments came to a close. Ahead of all comments being made public, Billboard explains the origins of this inquiry and its possible implications.
How the NOI Started
On Sept. 12, 2024, Billboard broke the news that the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, requesting the examination of “concerns” and “emerging issues” with U.S. PROs.
Trending on Billboard
The House Judiciary’s note cites two key issues: the “lack of transparency” surrounding PRO distributions and how they “currently gather information from…general licensees about public performance;” and the “proliferation” of PROs in the United States. This references the fact that, with newer entrants like Global Music Rights (GMR), PRO Music Rights (PMR) and AllTrack emerging over the last decade or so, the U.S. PRO total is up to six different options — making the licensing system more complicated and expensive for licensees. In contrast, most countries only have one PRO – while a small number have two – for writers to choose from.
Perlmutter and the Copyright Office replied to the letter by opening this inquiry in early 2025.
PRO History
The U.S. PRO system dates back to 1914 with the founding of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), which was created to help songwriters and publishers collect their earnings from public performances. This included collecting royalties from venues, restaurants, bars, college campuses and anywhere else music is played or performed in front of other people. It also included radio broadcasters. (In later years, as technology developed, performance monies also started to be collected from TV broadcasters and music streaming services.)
In 1931, the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC) opened as a more boutique option, largely representing works published by European firms. In 1939, broadcasters in the radio business banded together in protest of some of ASCAP’s licensing practices, which they felt were unfair, to eventually form their own competing PRO, Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI).
For many years, ASCAP and BMI acted on a not-for-profit basis (BMI changed to for-profit status in 2022) and allowed any writer to join. Their open door policies meant that the two came to represent the vast majority of songwriters in the U.S., while SESAC continued as a smaller, for-profit player that allowed sign-ups by invitation only.
Alleging ASCAP and BMI were partaking in “anticompetitive business practices,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued ASCAP and BMI beginning in the 1930s. By 1941, the two PROs had settled their cases and entered consent decrees with the DOJ. One of the stipulations of these consent decrees said that ASCAP and BMI were subject to oversight by a “rate court” if a licensee couldn’t reach an agreement with them on an appropriate royalty. In short, ASCAP and BMI could no longer negotiate any rate they wanted to for their songwriters, which became increasingly challenging to navigate as performance licensees expanded over the years to include major tech platforms.
Royalty rates in the music publishing sector, unlike those in the recorded music business, are often overseen by government bodies in the U.S. That includes the rate court, which steps in to set performance license rates for ASCAP and BMI when they can’t agree with licensees; and the Copyright Royalty Board, which regulates the rates for all U.S. mechanical royalties. For that reason, the publishing business is particularly sensitive to talk of any additional criticism, restriction or regulation, which is a possible result of the U.S. Copyright Office’s inquiry should Congress find it appropriate to take further action afterwards.
Why the NOI Started
From the perspective of small venues around the country that have already been squeezed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. PRO system today — including having to pay up to six different PROs for music — is seen as complicated and increasingly expensive. Sources in the live industry say one of the newcomers, GMR, also charges higher prices than its competitors for its performance license. Because it was founded in 2013, long after ASCAP and BMI’s DOJ woes, and because it positioned itself as an invite-only, for-profit PRO for elite musicians like Drake, Bruce Springsteen and Billie Eilish, GMR charges a premium.
The other two newcomers, AllTrack and PMR, are less understood by some licensees. AllTrack was founded in 2017 by former SESAC board member Hayden Bower and focuses on mid-sized and/or independent talent, hoping to provide a modernized, streamlined approach to the over 100 year old PRO system of royalty collection; while PMR was founded in 2018 by serial entrepreneur Jake Noch. PMR is perhaps best known for suing “the entire music industry,” as the PRO put it, for allegedly “running an illegal cartel for the performance rights of musical works… [and entering] into an illegal agreement, combination and/or conspiracy to shut PMR out of the market and fix prices.”
The House Judiciary Committee also expressed concern that the increasing number of PROs in the U.S. “represents an ever-present danger of infringement allegations and potential litigation risk from new and unknown sources,” as it stated in its letter to Perlmutter.
Besides frustration about how many PROs there are in today’s market, the House Judiciary flags a number of areas where transparency might require improvement. “It is difficult to assess how efficiently PROs are distributing general licensing revenue based on publicly available data,” the letter reads. “[We] request that the Office examine how the various PROs currently gather information from live music venues, music services, and other general licensees about public performance; the level of information currently provided by PROs to the public; whether any gaps or discrepancies occur in royalty distribution; what technological and business practices exist or could be developed to improve the current system; the extent to which the current distribution practices are the result of existing legal and regulatory constraints; and potential recommendations for policymakers.”
Transparency issues have been flagged a number of times over the years by stakeholders who feel PROs – in the U.S. and abroad – can be unclear about how they calculate royalties, bonuses and advances distributed to talent. Some PROs, however, would likely disagree with that characterization. ASCAP, for example, is proud of its songwriter-led board of directors, which determines how it handles distributions.
What Happens Next
The comment period ended on Friday, and soon, the responses from publishers, PROs, venues, broadcasters and more will be made public. From there, the Copyright Office will review the comments, and it will eventually write up a report with its findings. There is no timeline for this report, and it should be noted that the Copyright Office does not have the remit to make any specific changes to PROs but its findings could be influential to Congress.
As artificial intelligence continues to blur the lines of creativity in music, South Korea’s largest music copyright organization, KOMCA (Korea Music Copyright Association), is drawing a hard line: No AI-created compositions will be accepted for registration. The controversial decision took effect on March 24, sending ripples through Korea’s music scene and sparking broader conversations about AI’s role in global songwriting.
In an official statement on its website, KOMCA explained that due to the lack of legal frameworks and clear management guidelines for AI-generated content, it will suspend the registration of any works involving AI in the creative process. This includes any track where AI was used — even in part — to compose, write lyrics or contribute melodically.
Now, every new registration must be accompanied by an explicit self-declaration confirming that no AI was involved at any stage of the song’s creation. This declaration is made by checking a box on the required registration form — a step that carries significant legal and financial consequences if false information is declared. False declarations could lead to delayed royalty payments, complete removal of songs from the registry, and even civil or criminal liability.
Trending on Billboard
“KOMCA only recognizes songs that are wholly the result of human creativity,” the association said, noting that even a 1% contribution from AI makes a song ineligible for registration. “Until there is clear legislation or regulatory guidance, this is a precautionary administrative policy.”
The non-profit organization represents over 30,000 members, including songwriters, lyricists, and publishers, and oversees copyright for more than 3.7 million works from artists like PSY, BTS, EXO and Super Junior.
Importantly, the policy applies to the composition and lyric-writing stages of song creation, not necessarily the production or recording phase. That means high-profile K-pop companies like HYBE, which have used AI to generate multilingual vocal lines for existing songs, are not directly affected — at least not yet.
While South Korea’s government policy allows for partial copyright protection when human creativity is involved, KOMCA’s stance is notably stricter, requiring a total absence of AI involvement for a song to be protected.
This move comes amid growing international debate over the copyrightability of AI-generated art. In the U.S., a federal appeals court recently upheld a lower court’s decision to reject copyright registration for a work created entirely by an AI system called Creativity Machine. The U.S. Copyright Office maintains that only works with “human authorship” are eligible for protection, though it allows for copyright in cases where AI is used as a tool under human direction.
“Allowing copyright for machine-determined creative elements could undermine the constitutional purpose of copyright law,” U.S. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter said.
With AI tools becoming increasingly sophisticated — and accessible — KOMCA’s policy underscores a growing tension within the global music industry: Where do we draw the line between assistance and authorship?
This article originally appeared on Billboard Korea.
Dua Lipa won a ruling Thursday (March 27) dismissing a copyright lawsuit claiming she copied her smash hit song “Levitating” from two different decades-old songs.
The case, filed in 2022 by songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer, accused Lipa of ripping off their 1979 song “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and their 1980 song “Don Diablo.” The lawsuit was one of two high-profile copyright cases filed over “Levitating,” a massive hit that spent 77 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100.
In her decision, Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that Lipa’s song shared only generic elements with Brown and Linzer’s songs — the kind of basic musical building blocks that are not covered by federal copyright law and cannot be owned by any one songwriter.
Trending on Billboard
“The court finds that a musical style, defined by plaintiffs as ‘pop with a disco feel,’ and a musical function, defined by plaintiffs to include ‘entertainment and dancing,’ cannot possibly be protectable,” the judge wrote. “To hold otherwise would be to completely foreclose the further development of music in that genre or for that purpose.”
The judge said that some of the material Brown and Linzer claimed Lipa stole — like a “patter style” featuring rapid singing of one syllable per note — had been “used for centuries” and existed in operas by Mozart and operettas by Gilbert and Sullivan. The judge said another allegedly infringing element, a rapid tempo, was also “common” and had appeared identically in “Stayin’ Alive” by the Bee Gees.
“It is possible that a ‘layperson’ could listen to portions of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ songs and hear similarities,” the judge said. “But … the similarity between the works concerns only non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiffs’ work.”
In a statement to Billboard, an attorney for Brown and Linzer said they “respectfully disagree” with the decision and would file an appeal.
“This case has always been about standing up for the enduring value of original songwriting, and we continue to believe in the strength of Mr. Brown and Mr. Linzer’s creative legacy,” attorney Jason T. Brown said. “There’s a growing disconnect between how these cases are decided — by academically analyzing briefs, bar lines, and musical notation — versus how audiences actually experience music.”
An attorney for Lipa did not immediately return a request for comment.
Released on Dua Lipa’s 2020 album Future Nostalgia, “Levitating” spent a whopping 41 weeks in the top ten of the Hot 100 — the longest ever such run for a female artist — and was later named the No. 1 Hot 100 song of 2021.
In early 2022, the star was sued over the track twice, both over accusations that she had lifted key elements from earlier songs. The first lawsuit came from a Florida reggae band named Artikal Sound System, which claimed Lipa lifted the core hook for her song from their 2015 “Live Your Life.” That case was dropped in 2023 after Lipa’s attorneys won a key early-stage ruling.
The second case came from Brown and Linzer, who alleged that Lipa had stolen the melody that starts just a few seconds into her song, when Lipa begins singing, “If you wanna run away with me…” They called it a “duplicate” of their own songs.
But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge Failla said that claim was merely over “a descending chord and the one additional note” — a “combination of two unprotectable elements” that she said are “not sufficiently numerous or original to constitute an original work entitled to copyright protection.”
In reaching that conclusion, the judge heavily cited from recent litigation against Ed Sheeran over accusations that his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On.” That case also ended with a ruling that Sheeran had used only common, unprotectible elements.
Mariah Carey has won a federal court ruling dismissing a copyright lawsuit over her perennial holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You” – a decision that cited an expert who said the songs mostly just shared “Christmas song clichés.”
In a ruling issued Wednesday, Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani rejected allegations from songwriter Vince Vance that Carey and others had stolen key elements of her Christmas blockbuster from his 1989 song of the same name.
Ruling that Vance had failed to show that the songs were similar enough to violate copyright law, the judge cited analysis by a musicologist who said the two tracks were “very different songs” that shared only “commonplace Christmas song clichés” that had been used in many earlier tracks.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that [the songs by] Carey and Vance are substantially similar under the extrinsic test,” Ramírez Almadani wrote, using the legal term for how courts assess such allegations.
The judge not only tossed out Vance’s case, but also ruled that he and his lawyers should be punished for filing “frivolous” arguments. Calling it “egregious” conduct that aimed to “cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the costs of litigation,” the judge ordered that Vance and his lawyers to repay the legal bills Carey incurred defending those arguments.
Vance (real name Andy Stone) first sued Carey in 2022, claiming “All I Want” infringed the copyrights to a 1989 song of the exact same name recorded by his Vince Vance and the Valiants. Vance claimed that the earlier track received “extensive airplay” during the 1993 holiday season — a year before Carey released her now-better-known hit.
“Carey has … palmed off these works with her incredulous origin story, as if those works were her own,” Vance wrote in his latest complaint. “Her hubris knowing no bounds, even her co-credited songwriter doesn’t believe the story she has spun.”
Vance’s allegations were a big deal because Carey’s song is big business. The 1994 blockbuster, which became even more popular after it was featured in the 2003 holiday rom-com Love Actually, has re-taken the top spot on the Hot 100 for six straight years and earned a whopping $8.5 million in global revenue in 2022.
Carey’s attorneys asked the judge to end the case last year, arguing that the two songs shared only generic similarities that are firmly in the public domain – including basic Christmas terminology and a simple message that’s been used in “legions of Christmas songs.”
“The claimed similarities are an unprotectable jumble of elements: a title and hook phrase used by many earlier Christmas songs, other commonplace words, phrases, and Christmas tropes like ‘Santa Claus’ and ‘mistletoe,’ and a few unprotectable pitches and chords randomly scattered throughout these completely different songs,” Carey’s attorneys wrote at the time.
In Wednesday’s ruling, Ramírez Almadani granted that motion by endorsing two reports from musicologists hired by Carey’s lawyers that strongly rejected Vance’s allegations. In one report, New York University professor Lawrence Ferrara testified that he had found “at least 19 songs” that incorporated the same lyrical idea as “All I Want” that had been released prior to Vance’s track.
“[Vance] and [Carey] in their entirety are very different songs and the only element of similarity is the use of a common lyrical idea and Christmas song clichés that were in common use prior to [Vance],” Ferrara wrote in the report that the judge cited.
Vance’s attorneys submitted their own expert reports supporting his allegations, but the judge rejected them as evidence – saying that one was “not based on sufficient facts or data” and was “not the product of reliable principles and methods” as required by existing legal precedents.
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
A federal judge is shaking up Limp Bizkit’s $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG), issuing a procedural ruling that sends much of the contentious legal battle to state court but allows copyright claims to move ahead toward trial.
In a decision issued Tuesday (March 19), Judge Percy Anderson said he would decline to exercise jurisdiction over the majority of the lawsuit’s accusations against UMG, including its core claim that the band is entitled to a ruling of “rescission” that voids its deals with the label and allows it to take back copyrights to its music.
Citing concerns about “economy, convenience [and] fairness,” the judge ruled that those claims must instead be handled by state courts in New York or California. But he denied UMG’s motion to dismiss the band’s claim of copyright infringement, allowing those claims to proceed in his court.
Trending on Billboard
Though hardly a slam dunk, the ruling is a positive development for Limp Bizkit. In an earlier ruling, Judge Anderson had outright rejected the rescission claim — a holding that also meant the band couldn’t sue the label for copyright infringement. In the new decision, the judge left the question of rescission open for a future ruling by a state court, meaning that claim — and the lucrative copyright claims — are back in play.
Though the copyright claims will now move forward in his court, the judge has repeatedly stressed that those allegations can only succeed if the band’s contracts with UMG are rescinded and it regains its ownership of the copyrights. The judge could potentially pause the case while the rescission issue is litigated in state court, but he gave no indication that he would do so in Tuesday’s decision.
Frontman Fred Durst and Limp Bizkit sued in October, claiming the band had “never received any royalties from UMG” despite its huge success over the years: “The band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action.” The band argued that the damages total owed by UMG would “easily surpass $200 million” when the case was over.
But in January, Judge Anderson sided with UMG on the core question of rescission. He ruled that the band had in fact been “paid millions in advances” and that UMG had fronted “substantial sums” to record and distribute Limp Bizkit’s albums — meaning the band didn’t deserve the drastic remedy of terminating the decades-old deals in their entirety.
“Plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties’ relationship beginning in 1996 — nearly 30 years — because the agreements should be rescinded as fraudulently induced,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of ‘substantial’ or ‘total failure’ in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission of the parties’ agreements.”
Following that ruling, Limp Bizkit responded by filing an updated version of the lawsuit. In it, the band added new factual allegations to support their demand for rescission, including that its former manager had fraudulently induced them to sign agreements, engaging in “wrongful self-dealing” while the band was “paid nothing.”
In Tuesday’s decision, Judge Anderson said those new allegations would require the kind of detailed analysis of novel state-law issues that a state-level court was better suited to address.
“The rescission claims, on which the copyright claims depend, … require an analysis of state law of both New York and California law involving facts and law that are distinct from those necessary to adjudicate the copyright claim,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs’ effort to rescind the agreements as a result of the alleged fraud committed by their former business manager appears to also raise complex and novel theories for which there is limited controlling legal precedent.”
Miley Cyrus has lost her initial bid to dismiss a copyright case claiming her chart-topping “Flowers” ripped off the Bruno Mars song “When I Was Your Man,” allowing the high-profile lawsuit to proceed toward a trial.
Seeking to end the case at the outset, attorneys for Cyrus had argued that the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit lacked the legal “standing” to pursue it. The case was filed not by Mars himself, but a financial entity called Tempo Music Investments that bought the rights of his co-writer Philip Lawrence.
But in a ruling issued Tuesday, a Los Angeles federal judge rejected that argument, calling it “incorrect” and a “misunderstanding” of existing legal precedents.
Trending on Billboard
“Tempo now steps into Lawrence’s shoes and is a co‐owner of the exclusive rights of the copyright,” Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote. “Because Lawrence as a co‐owner could sue for infringement, Tempo as co‐owner, in lieu of Lawrence, can sue for infringement without joining the other co‐owners of the copyright.”
Attorneys for Cyrus called Tempo’s partial ownership a “fatal and incurable defect in plaintiff’s claim,” but Judge Pregerson ruled that endorsing the star’s argument would be a radical shift in the legal landscape and have a profound economic and creative impact.
“Such a limitation would diminish the value of jointly owned copyrights, because buyers would be less interested in purchasing a copyright that they cannot enforce, thereby disincentivizing co‐authorship and collaboration in works,” the judge wrote. “This would undermine Congress’s intent.”
In rejecting it, the judge took Miley’s argument to its rational endpoint: “If, as songwriter defendants’ arguments seem to suggest, a co‐owner’s right to sue for infringement is lost upon transfer, then if all original co‐authors transferred their interest, the copyright could never be enforced.”
Tuesday’s ruling is only an initial decision, and does not mean that Tempo will win its case against Cyrus. As it moves ahead, her attorneys will pivot to more substantive arguments – that her song simply did not infringe the Mars hit because they share only “unprotected ideas and musical building blocks.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
“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 it as an “answer song,” with lyrics that clearly referenced 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.” Tempo, which had purchased a fractional share in the song from co-writer Lawrence, argued it was “undeniable” that Cyrus’ hit “would not exist” if not for “Your Man.”
In her motion to dismiss the case, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and the song’s two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a fatal flaw: “Without the consent of the other owners, a grant of rights from just one co-owner does not confer standing.”
Karol G and Universal Music Group (UMG) are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over a track from the Colombian superstar’s chart-topping album Mañana Será Bonito. In a case filed in Miami federal court, producers Ocean Vibes (Jack Hernandez) and Alfr3d Beats (Dick Alfredo Caballero Rodriguez) say the singer and her co-writers stole key elements of […]