TOKYO —

In a significant legal victory for global music superstar Bad Bunny and over 150 other urban music artists, a U.S. federal judge has largely dismissed a sweeping copyright infringement lawsuit concerning the use of the dembow rhythm. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr., significantly narrows the scope of a complex litigation that threatened to reshape the landscape of reggaeton and related genres. While the majority of the claims have been thrown out, a small number of allegations pertaining to the direct use of specific sound recordings by the pioneering Jamaican duo Steely & Clevie remain under consideration.

This landmark decision, initially reconsidered and finalized on September 1, 2023, addresses a dispute that began in 2021. The lawsuit was initiated by Cleveland "Clevie" Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson, the influential figures behind Steely & Clevie. The plaintiffs contended that their 1989 track "Fish Market" served as the foundational origin for a distinct rhythmic pattern, widely recognized as a precursor to the dembow, which they allege has been extensively incorporated into thousands of reggaeton songs without proper licensing or compensation. The initial complaint cast a wide net, naming more than 150 artists and citing nearly 2,000 songs. Prominent figures implicated in the suit, beyond Bad Bunny, included global stars such as Karol G, Daddy Yankee, Drake, Luis Fonsi, Pitbull, and Justin Bieber, underscoring the vast potential impact of the litigation.

The Core of the Controversy: The "Boom-Ch-Ch-Boom-Ch" Pattern

At the heart of the legal battle was the rhythmic sequence often described as "boom-ch-ch-boom-ch," a characteristic element deeply embedded within the dembow rhythm that forms the sonic backbone of much of reggaeton and Latin urban music. The plaintiffs argued that this specific arrangement and sequence of percussive sounds, originating from "Fish Market," constituted a protected musical work. They asserted that its subsequent widespread adoption by contemporary artists represented a significant infringement of their intellectual property rights.

Judge Birotte’s initial ruling in July had suggested that a jury might need to weigh in on whether the combination of musical elements, as presented by the plaintiffs, could indeed qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law. However, following a more thorough review of the case’s intricacies and a robust defense presented by Bad Bunny’s legal team, the magistrate revised his stance. This reconsideration led to the substantial dismissal of the core claims.

A Judicial Reassessment: Defining Copyrightable Material

The pivotal shift in the judge’s perspective hinged on the plaintiffs’ inability to pinpoint a single, clearly defined, copyrighted work that contained all the specific musical elements they sought to protect. Judge Birotte concluded that legally aggregating characteristics from disparate songs to construct a claim for a single protectable work was insufficient under copyright law.

In his revised order, Judge Birotte articulated his reasoning: "Upon further review of the record, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not clearly identified any copyrighted work that contains the allegedly protectable selection and arrangement they seek to enforce." This statement became the cornerstone of the ruling, effectively stating that the plaintiffs had not met the threshold requirement of demonstrating a singular, existing copyrighted composition from which their claims could be substantiated.

The judge’s reasoning directly addressed the defense’s argument that the plaintiffs were attempting to retroactively define a copyrightable rhythm by piecing together elements from various musical sources, a strategy that the court found legally untenable. By establishing that the plaintiffs had not identified a specific, protected composition that embodied their claimed rhythmic pattern, Judge Birotte effectively dismantled the theory of infringement as it was broadly applied across the hundreds of songs and artists involved. This conclusion led to the dismissal of a substantial portion of the lawsuit, significantly curtailing the plaintiffs’ legal recourse.

Defense Celebrates a Landmark Victory

The outcome was met with considerable relief and celebration from the legal representatives of Bad Bunny and the other named artists. Kenneth D. Freundlich, an attorney for Bad Bunny, emphasized the court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ strategy. "You cannot register a rhythm as copyrightable by reconstructing it from three different songs once you are already in court," Freundlich stated. "Copyright protects what an artist actually created, not a collage assembled during litigation. That is what the court rejected today."

This sentiment was echoed by other defense attorneys who had argued that granting the plaintiffs’ claims could grant them an overly broad and potentially stifling control over fundamental rhythmic elements that are intrinsic to the evolution and expression of urban music. The defense had consistently maintained that the plaintiffs were attempting to claim ownership over common musical building blocks rather than original, distinct compositions. Billboard reported that Bad Bunny’s legal team had specifically highlighted this aspect of the plaintiffs’ strategy, arguing that it constituted an overreach of copyright law.

The defense’s successful challenge centered on the principle that copyright law protects original works of authorship. The argument posited that abstracting a rhythmic pattern and claiming it as a singular protected entity, especially when compiled from multiple sources during the litigation process, did not align with the fundamental tenets of copyright protection. The court’s decision appears to affirm this interpretation, drawing a clear line between the protection of specific creative works and the broader, foundational elements of musical genres.

The Path Forward: Lingering Claims and Broader Implications

Despite this significant win for Bad Bunny and the broader urban music community, the legal battle is not entirely concluded. A subset of claims remains active, specifically those alleging the direct infringement of Steely & Clevie’s original sound recordings. These remaining allegations are distinct from the dismissed claims regarding the rhythmic pattern and are based on more direct assertions of unauthorized use of the actual recordings themselves, rather than the abstract rhythmic structure. These claims will proceed under a different legal framework, focusing on the specific usage of sampled or directly incorporated audio material.

Nevertheless, the ruling represents a substantial reduction in the complexity and financial exposure of the lawsuit. What began as a sweeping claim involving thousands of songs and a significant portion of the reggaeton and Latin urban music elite has been dramatically narrowed. The decision sets an important precedent, reinforcing the principle that copyright protection must be tied to identifiable, original works and not to abstract combinations of musical elements that are not demonstrably contained within a single, protected composition.

Context and Chronology of the Dispute

The origins of this extensive legal dispute can be traced back to the early days of hip-hop and dancehall music in Jamaica. The duo Steely & Clevie, comprised of Cleveland Browne and Wycliffe Johnson, were instrumental in developing and popularizing various rhythmic patterns that would profoundly influence subsequent genres. Their track "Fish Market," released in 1989, is widely acknowledged as a significant early example of a rhythmic structure that would later be adapted and popularized as the dembow rhythm in reggaeton.

The dembow rhythm itself gained widespread international recognition and commercial success primarily through its adoption in reggaeton, a genre that emerged from the fusion of Caribbean, Latin American, and hip-hop influences. Artists in Puerto Rico and Panama, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, began incorporating and evolving the dembow rhythm, making it a defining characteristic of the genre. This evolution led to a proliferation of songs that utilized variations of the rhythm, making it a ubiquitous element in global urban music charts.

Timeline of Key Events:

  • 1989: Steely & Clevie release "Fish Market," featuring a distinctive rhythmic pattern.
  • Late 1990s – Early 2000s: The dembow rhythm becomes a foundational element of reggaeton music.
  • 2021: Cleveland Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe Johnson file a copyright infringement lawsuit, alleging unauthorized use of their rhythmic patterns in thousands of reggaeton songs, naming over 150 artists, including Bad Bunny.
  • July 2023: U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. issues an initial ruling suggesting a jury trial might be necessary to determine if the aggregated musical elements could be copyrighted.
  • September 1, 2023: Judge Birotte reconsiders his ruling and issues a decision largely dismissing the claims, stating the plaintiffs failed to identify a specific copyrighted work containing the protected elements.
  • Ongoing: Remaining claims related to the direct use of Steely & Clevie’s sound recordings continue.

Analysis of Implications and Future Considerations

This ruling has several significant implications for the music industry, particularly within the urban and Latin music spheres.

  • Protection of Foundational Rhythms: The decision provides a degree of clarity on the copyrightability of rhythmic patterns. By requiring plaintiffs to identify a specific, existing copyrighted work, the court has made it more difficult to claim ownership over abstract rhythmic structures that have become genre-defining. This may prevent overly broad claims that could stifle musical innovation and the natural evolution of genres.
  • Defense Against "Patchwork" Copyright Claims: The ruling effectively bolsters defenses against what could be termed "patchwork" copyright claims – attempts to construct a copyright infringement case by assembling elements from various unrelated works. The court’s emphasis on identifying a singular, protected composition is a critical safeguard against such strategies.
  • Impact on Sample Clearance and Licensing: While this ruling focuses on a specific rhythmic pattern, it indirectly reinforces the importance of clear licensing and clearance for direct samples of sound recordings. The fact that claims related to direct use of Steely & Clevie’s recordings remain active underscores that unauthorized use of existing audio material is still actionable.
  • Precedent for Genre Evolution: The dembow rhythm, and its predecessors, are integral to the identity of reggaeton. This lawsuit highlighted the potential vulnerability of genres built on evolving and shared rhythmic foundations. Judge Birotte’s decision suggests a legal framework that respects the collaborative and evolutionary nature of musical genres, while still upholding copyright for original works.

The legal landscape surrounding copyright in music is perpetually evolving, especially with the rise of digital music and the ease with which sounds can be sampled and remixed. This case, however, serves as a potent reminder that while inspiration and influence are the lifeblood of music, they must be balanced with the legal protections afforded to original creative works. For Bad Bunny and the countless artists within the reggaeton ecosystem, this judicial outcome represents a vital affirmation of their creative freedom and a significant win in a dispute that could have had far-reaching consequences for the genre they have helped to define on a global scale. The music world will be watching closely as the remaining claims proceed, but for now, the core of this ambitious lawsuit has been effectively dismantled.