Federal Judge Keeps Reggaeton Copyright Case Alive, Sending Origins of "Dem Bow" Rhythm to a Jury

A federal judge in California has declined to shut down a sprawling copyright lawsuit over the origins of the rhythmic backbone of reggaeton music, ruling that both sides fell short of the bar needed to win the case outright and that a jury will ultimately have to sort out the competing claims.

U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. denied summary judgment motions from both the plaintiffs and the more than 160 defendant artists named in the suit, a group that includes Bad Bunny, Luis Fonsi and Ivy Queen, finding that too many disputed facts remain for the court to resolve the case on paper.

In his ruling, Judge Birotte described the case as fundamentally a "battle of the experts," one where conflicting testimony about the nature and originality of a specific rhythm cannot be weighed or resolved by a judge at this stage. Instead, he said, it is the kind of factual dispute that must go before a jury for a final determination.

The lawsuit traces back to "Fish Market," an instrumental track released in 1989 by reggae and dancehall producers Cleveland "Clevie" Browne and the late Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson. That song is credited with launching what has become known as the "Dem Bow riddim," a rhythmic pattern that plaintiffs argue became foundational to reggaeton as a genre. Johnson's estate and Browne originally filed separate lawsuits in 2021, which were later consolidated into a single case.

According to the filing, as many as 3,600 reggaeton songs incorporate elements drawn from "Fish Market," and the plaintiffs argue that the specific combination of seven musical elements found in the "Dem Bow riddim" is original enough to warrant copyright protection, since no comparable arrangement appears in earlier works.

The reggaeton musicians have pushed back hard on that framing, arguing that the particular selection and arrangement of elements the plaintiffs claim to own doesn't actually exist within any copyright the plaintiffs hold. Rather, they contend, what plaintiffs are describing as unique is really a widely used, generic rhythm that no single party can claim exclusive rights over.

This isn't the defendants' first attempt to end the case early. Last year, Judge Birotte rejected their motion to dismiss the underlying infringement claims, saying at the time that it was too soon in the litigation to wade into the broader history of reggaeton and dancehall as musical genres.

Much of the recent fight centered on dueling efforts by both sides to disqualify each other's expert witnesses, with each side accusing the other's experts of applying the wrong legal standard for assessing originality and protectability under copyright law.

Judge Birotte acknowledged that the experts differ in how they frame the governing legal test, but said that disagreement alone doesn't make either side's testimony inadmissible. He noted that questions about whether an expert placed too much or too little weight on factors like prior art or independent creation go to the credibility of that testimony, not whether a jury should be allowed to hear it at all.

Stephen M. Doniger, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling touches on significant questions about what qualifies for copyright protection, adding that his clients are simply seeking compensation for what they view as widespread unlicensed use of their original work.

While pleased that most of the defendants' arguments were rejected, Doniger said he was disappointed the court did not go further and grant the plaintiffs' own bid for summary judgment, and he expressed confidence that a jury will ultimately side with his clients once the case moves forward.