Bad Bunny Scores New Hearing in Sweeping Reggaeton Copyright Battle

A federal judge in Los Angeles is taking another look at a major copyright ruling that could have broad implications for reggaeton, after attorneys for Bad Bunny, Drake and other prominent artists challenged a decision that could send claims involving roughly 1,800 songs to a jury.

During a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. questioned attorneys on both sides about whether the musical material at the center of the dispute actually appears in the 1989 song “Fish Market” in the form claimed by the plaintiffs. Birotte did not issue a decision from the bench, instead taking the matter under submission and telling attorneys that he would likely need several weeks before issuing an order.

The underlying lawsuit was brought by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, the Jamaican production duo known as Steely & Clevie. The plaintiffs hold the composition copyright to “Fish Market,” a 1989 recording that they contend provided the original foundation for the dembow rhythm that became one of the defining musical elements of reggaeton.

In a ruling issued in July, Birotte determined that a jury should ultimately decide whether the musical combination identified by the plaintiffs is sufficiently protected by copyright and whether numerous reggaeton recordings copied those protected elements without authorization. The ruling potentially affects more than 100 artists and approximately 1,800 songs, giving the case implications across a large part of the genre.

Bad Bunny’s legal team subsequently asked Birotte to reconsider that decision, with attorneys representing other defendants later joining the request. Their argument centers on how the plaintiffs have identified the allegedly protected musical material.

According to the defense, the elements referred to in the case as the “Fish Market Elements” do not constitute a continuous musical passage from a single composition. Attorneys argue that the plaintiffs combined portions of different sections of “Fish Market” and another related work, “Pounder (Dub Mix II),” to create the two-measure pattern they claim is protected.

Copyright protection, the defense maintains, cannot be based on a musical arrangement assembled from separate portions of different works when those portions do not appear together in the copyrighted composition.

Kenneth Freundlich, who represents Bad Bunny, focused much of Friday’s hearing on testimony from Clevie Browne. Freundlich pointed to sworn statements in which Browne described the two measures identified in the lawsuit as “Fish Market” as coming from separate portions of the 1989 song.

Freundlich said Browne testified that the first bar came from the opening portion of “Fish Market,” while the second was taken from much later in the composition. He argued that the two-measure timbale sequence treated as a protected musical element appears together only in “Pounder (Dub Mix II),” which also contains a tambourine component that the plaintiffs separately identify as part of the protectable material in “Fish Market.”

Steely & Clevie own the sound-recording copyright to “Pounder,” while the composition copyright belongs to Jamaican producer Dennis “the Menace” Halliburton, who is not a party to the lawsuit. The defense argues that this creates a problem with the plaintiffs’ theory because the alleged protected combination cannot be constructed by taking individual elements from separate works and treating the resulting arrangement as though it appeared as a continuous passage in “Fish Market.”

Birotte pressed the plaintiffs’ attorneys on that issue. At the beginning of Friday’s hearing, he indicated that the reconsideration request required close examination and asked how the plaintiffs could maintain that the disputed pattern exists in “Fish Market” when testimony appeared to indicate that the timbale figure was drawn from two separate sections.

Benjamin Tookey, an attorney for Steely & Clevie, responded that a consecutive two-bar timbale pattern does exist within the “Fish Market” composition and is repeated at different points throughout the work.

Freundlich challenged that explanation, arguing that the plaintiffs had not previously characterized the material that way and that the position conflicted with Browne’s sworn testimony. He maintained that they were effectively constructing a new musical sequence from pieces found in different places and works. In court filings, the defense has described the approach as assembling a “Frankenstein” from separate musical elements and argues that such a construction cannot establish copyright protection over a pattern that was not expressed in that form within the copyrighted composition.

Stephen M. Doniger, representing Steely & Clevie, rejected that characterization during the hearing. He argued that a genuine factual dispute remains over whether the two-bar sequence can be found within “Fish Market” and said the defense’s description oversimplifies the plaintiffs’ position. Doniger maintained that “Pounder” is relevant because it contains a selection and arrangement of musical material substantially connected to what appears in “Fish Market,” rather than because the plaintiffs are attempting to claim ownership over an unrelated composition.

Freundlich also told the court that allowing the case to proceed toward trial could require discovery and analysis of approximately 1,800 songs associated with more than 100 artists. The defendants include Karol G, Anitta, Pitbull, Justin Bieber, and Daddy Yankee.

Bad Bunny has denied infringing Steely & Clevie’s copyrights and is accused of using the allegedly protected musical elements in numerous songs, including “Tití Me Preguntó,” “Un Ratito” and “Una Vez.” Freundlich argued that the scale of the litigation could make the process lengthy if the July ruling remains in place.

Bad Bunny’s motion asks Birotte to either reverse his July ruling or allow the defendants to immediately appeal the decision before the case proceeds further. The judge has not indicated which path he will take. After the approximately hour-long hearing, Birotte said he needed additional time to consider the arguments and expected that it could be several weeks before he issued a written order.