Miley Cyrus Tests Copyright Transfer Rules in ‘Flowers’ Lawsuit

On January 14, 2025, Bloomberg Law published an article by Aruni Soni on the Tempo Music Investments v. Miley Cyrus lawsuit and the broader implications of the arguments. The article quotes Daniel Schacht, Music & Entertainment and IP Co-chair.

Excerpted from the article:

“Cyrus’ position would transport the music industry back to the first version of the Copyright Act from 1909, when rights could be transferred only as a whole, not in shares. The sale of a copyright would be less valuable because you couldn’t sue on your share unless you had 100%,” he [Schacht] said.

The Tresóna and Sybersound decisions both drew limits around the types of rights transferred when a co-owner of a copyright licenses a song. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled each plaintiff had only a non-exclusive license for the songs they were suing over, because they didn’t acquire their rights from all the original copyright owners. Since they didn’t hold an exclusive license, the court ruled in both cases, the plaintiffs hadn’t obtained the right to sue a third party for infringement.

Cyrus extended the logic from Tresóna and Sybersound a step further, Schacht said.

Unlike the plaintiffs in those cases, Tempo Music Investments said it purchased all of Phillip Lawrence’s rights in “When I Was Your Man,” not merely a license or subset of those rights. But, Cyrus’ motion said, “without the consent of the other owners, a grant of rights from just one co-owner does not confer standing on the assignee even if the grant purports to transfer exclusive rights.”

Schacht called the two Ninth Circuit precedents a “house of cards” built on a “questionable logical setup.”

“We’re seeing somebody saying, ‘Look, let’s apply that logic all the way to, in this case, an assignee of all the rights,’” he [Schacht] said.”

 

Read the full article, Miley Cyrus Tests Copyright Transfer Rules in ‘Flowers’ Lawsuit.