Is Flowers too similar to When I Was Your Man?

[Sneaky Oliver 21,238]

I have always thought, she got away with this because she kinda paraphrases “generic” words from Bruno’s lyrics, like two different writers could come up with those sentences without knowing each other. Like it’s an obvious reference but not a copyright infringement. That would not be the case if someone had shown up singing “I don’t want your bad romance” or something, that would be more of a unique phrasing. Idk 

[StrawberryBlond 13,984]

15 hours ago, Rat Boy said:

Isn’t it considered transformative use (legal term) therefore not illegal. I thought the song is a very witty take on WIWYM/her relationship.

It is transformative but not enough, in my opinion. It uses too many identical words, answering almost every line of the song. It is cool how it references her relationship but weirdly comes off like she's shading Bruno and his song. I know it's not her intention, but that's how it comes across. It's an odd feeling listening to it when you know what song it references, you can't unhear it and Bruno's song becomes all you can hear, at least for me.

15 hours ago, Stephen said:

Can love me better
I can love me better, baby
Can love me better
I can love me better, baby

To me this is the best part of Flowers and what makes it a hit.

True, that part is pretty catchy. Along with the verses, that's the part that I find ok. 

13 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

We didn’t see copyright issues because what she did isn’t protected under copyright. 

For example, Weird Al when he parodies songs often uses the exact same melody and production, but because the song is transformed from it’s original version via a changing of the lyrics and themes, he doesn’t need to seek any permission to do it, he can just do it.

(He chooses to get permission, but he isn’t required to.)

Miley doesn’t even go that far. The melody isn’t identical, the theme is completely inverse of WIWYM, and there’s no production similarity. Add onto that her open acknowledgement of the source and there’s nothing there under copyright law that would require any difference in crediting.

Had Bruno wanted to then sure he could’ve tried (like that group did with Taylor to SiO or that artists did to Ed) or Miley could’ve offered (like Olivia did for Deja Vu) but its safe to assume he blessed it privately. 

Weird Al completely changes the songs for his parodies, though, including theme in many cases, to the point where you wonder how he came up with a parody based on the original source. But Miley sounds as if she took Bruno's song and tweaked the chorus slightly, but she already had the major groundwork down and didn't have much to re-write. The melody isn't isn't identical but once you know what it's based on, Bruno's melody seems to be in the back of your mind (it also interpolates I Will Survive which you can also hear, which also escaped sampling copyright). 

13 hours ago, Taylucifer said:

oh I thought that it fully was sampled or the song writers were already credited, gagged that they weren't 

It just blows me away that this song got under the wire but songs that are much more removed from their supposed inspiration have been hounded for being rip-offs (BTW and Thinking Out Loud, most prominently). In fact, the public doesn't really seem to acknowledge this at all, forgetting that they made WIWYM a hit first. It just shows how far Miley has come in her career and how much the public has grown to respect her because if she did this back in the day when it was cool to make fun of her, she could well have been slammed for copying.

10 hours ago, Admin said:

That was completely made up by Miley stan accounts to promote the song.

I stand corrected. I guess, how would anyone know which songs had been privately dedicated? 

7 hours ago, Sneaky Oliver said:

I have always thought, she got away with this because she kinda paraphrases “generic” words from Bruno’s lyrics, like two different writers could come up with those sentences without knowing each other. Like it’s an obvious reference but not a copyright infringement. That would not be the case if someone had shown up singing “I don’t want your bad romance” or something, that would be more of a unique phrasing. Idk 

While the words aren't unique phrasing in and of themselves, putting them all together in the same song (and chorus specifically) is definitely unique. I've never heard a song that references buying flowers, being taken out dancing and holding hands all referenced in a chorus apart from these 2 songs. I definitely think Gaga fans would be hopping mad if another artist took one of her songs, gave it this treatment and then had a bigger hit with it than she did. As far as I can see, no one's referring to Bruno in Miley's comments or anyone saying in Bruno's comments that they came here after hearing Flowers. For the younger generation in particular, they may not be aware of an 11 year old song. I know we can say they can be aware of it now, but as I said, I've seen no evidence of this increasing the traction of WIWYM. 

[chun li 2,602]

I totally get what you mean. While there is nothing wrong with referencing a song or repurpose it I find it so wild that it won a grammy and got massively rewarded for it.

Lyrics from Bruno Mars and instrumental from I will survive... I mean come on.

Then you have Lana on the side creating music from scratch and gettind paid dust for it

Edited February 10 by chun li

[Future Lovers 6,437]

8 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 

Weird Al completely changes the songs for his parodies, though, including theme in many cases, to the point where you wonder how he came up with a parody based on the original source. But Miley sounds as if she took Bruno's song and tweaked the chorus slightly, but she already had the major groundwork down and didn't have much to re-write. The melody isn't isn't identical but once you know what it's based on, Bruno's melody seems to be in the back of your mind (it also interpolates I Will Survive which you can also hear, which also escaped sampling copyright). 

I mean if that’s your opinion that’s fine, just in regards to your actual question the factual reason it escaped with no issue is transformative use as it fits those guidelines perfectly. Maybe you disagree with those guidelines but she did it all how she was told she was allowed to. 

[Future Lovers 6,437]

8 hours ago, chun li said:

I totally get what you mean. While there is nothing wrong with referencing a song or repurpose it I find it so wild that it won a grammy and got massively rewarded for it.

Lyrics from Bruno Mars and instrumental from I will survive... I mean come on.

Then you have Lana on the side creating music from scratch and gettind paid dust for it

I would say a big part of it winning is what she did is a lot harder than people assume it is. 

Successfully sampling, interpolating, and transforming existing work is an art form unto itself and requires a lot of intelligence as a writer and singer to do. There are a lot of lazy examples, but Flowers isn’t one of them.