Miley Cyrus settles $300M lawsuit with Jamaican dancehall artist Flourgon over claims she stole the 2013 track We Can’t Stop
Miley Cyrus has settled a lawsuit over her 2013 track We Can’t Stop.
The 27-year-old singer was sued by Michael May in a $300 million lawsuit in March 2018 over the rights to the song, which he claimed closely resembles the lyrics to a song he released more than 25 years ago called We Run Things.
Michael, who performs as Flourgon, sang the lyrics: ‘We run things. Things no run we,’ while the Nothing Breaks Like a Heart hitmaker sings the line: ‘We run things, things don’t run we.’
Legal trouble: Miley Cyrus has settled a lawsuit over her 2013 track We Can’t Stop; seen in September
However, it has now been revealed that all parties have agreed that ‘this action shall be discontinued with prejudice … with each party to bear its or his own costs and attorneys’ fees.’
‘With prejudice’ means that the plaintiff cannot pursue the same claim in another suit.
This comes almost one year after Miley failed to get the case dropped.
In the past: The 27-year-old singer was sued by Michael May in a $300 million lawsuit in March 2018 over the rights to the song, which he claimed closely resembles the lyrics to a song he released more than 25 years ago called We Run Things
Michael, who performs as Flourgon, sang the lyrics: ‘We run things. Things no run we,’ while the Nothing Breaks Like a Heart hitmaker sings the line: ‘We run things, things don’t run we’
Despite Miley’s attempt to get the suit thrown out, a judge ruled in February 2019 that the case could proceed.
In documents obtained by The Blast, the judge noted: ‘In sum, analysis of the relevant factors strongly indicates that Defendants’ use of the Phrase is a fair use.
‘Factual questions remain, however, as to certain of the fair use factors, particularly the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the needs of Defendants’ transformative use, and the effect on the market, if any, for May’s work.
It’s her party: In documents obtained by The Blast, the judge noted: ‘In sum, analysis of the relevant factors strongly indicates that Defendants’ use of the Phrase is a fair use
Yikes: The suit, at the time, accused the Wrecking Ball hitmaker of rebranding herself from her ‘trademark good girl Disney Profile’ and becoming more ‘edgy,’ and suggested her new music took influence from urban and Caribbean sounds
‘The current record suggests several ways in which Defendants may well prevail on the merits, from a determination that the Phrase was not original to May or that May made only trivial changes to a pre-existing strict Patois version of the Phrase, to indisputable proof that Defendants did not copy from May’s song, but instead adopted the Phrase from one of many other sources, to facts establishing fair use as a matter of law. Those determinations, however, must await summary judgment.’
The suit, at the time, accused the Wrecking Ball hitmaker of rebranding herself from her ‘trademark good girl Disney Profile’ and becoming more ‘edgy,’ and suggested her new music took influence from urban and Caribbean sounds.
May also claimed both tracks feature a theme of ‘defiant audaciousness in the realm of self-discovery and self-governance.’
Tough call: May also claimed both tracks feature a theme of ‘defiant audaciousness in the realm of self-discovery and self-governance’
