Bad Bunny Wins Key Ruling in Massive Reggaeton Lawsuit
A US federal judge has reversed his own earlier ruling and struck down a major part of a copyright lawsuit accusing hundreds of reggaeton songs, including tracks by Bad Bunny, Karol G and Daddy Yankee, of illegally using the genre's signature dembow rhythm. Judge André Birotte Jr. found that reggae duo Steely & Clevie, who brought the case, had failed to show they held valid copyright over the rhythm, having pieced it together from multiple songs rather than identifying it in a single copyrighted work. The decision is a significant win for the defendants and undercuts fears that the case could effectively grant a monopoly over an entire musical genre.
The lawsuit, filed in 2021 by Cleveland "Clevie" Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson, centres on their 1989 song "Fish Market" and targets almost 2,000 songs by more than 150 artists, including Pitbull, Drake, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber. A July ruling had sent the case towards trial, but Birotte said he was persuaded to reconsider after Bad Bunny's lawyers argued the plaintiffs had assembled a "Frankenstein copyright" from three separate songs rather than proving the rhythm existed in one. The judge ruled this cannot stand under US copyright law, though narrower claims over direct sampling of Steely & Clevie's original recordings may still proceed.
- Judge reverses himself, dismisses key part of reggaeton copyright case.
- Steely & Clevie failed to prove ownership of the dembow rhythm.
- Narrower sampling claims against artists may still continue.
New here? Start with this
Bad Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee and other reggaeton stars have been swept up in a huge US copyright lawsuit over "dembow," the distinctive rhythm that underpins the genre. The case was brought in 2021 by reggae musician Cleveland "Clevie" Browne and the family of his late collaborator Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson, who say the beat originated in their 1989 song "Fish Market" and that nearly 2,000 later tracks, by more than 150 artists, copied it without permission.
The lawsuit alarmed many in the music industry because it did not target specific songs for sampling in the usual sense, but claimed ownership of the underlying rhythmic pattern itself. Critics warned that if the claim succeeded, it could hand two people effective control over a rhythm used across an entire genre, with huge implications for how artists write and license music.
The case is being heard in a US federal court, where Judge André Birotte Jr. has already changed his mind once on a key legal question, showing how contested and technical the dispute over what can actually be copyrighted has become. The outcome matters not just for the artists named, but for how far copyright law can stretch to cover a musical style rather than a specific recording or composition.