One of the most consequential copyright battles in Latin music is still alive — and the next chapter may be decided by a jury. A U.S. federal judge has ruled that competing expert testimony must be weighed at trial in the sprawling case over whether the foundational dembow rhythm associated with Jamaican production duo Steely & Clevie can receive copyright protection.
The lawsuit names Bad Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee, Drake, Pitbull, Luis Fonsi, Justin Bieber, more than 150 artists, and companies connected to the three major music groups. According to Music Business Worldwide, the claims reach nearly 2,000 tracks and could place hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages at stake.
What the Case Is Really About
The plaintiffs — Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of the late Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson — argue that the duo's 1989 recording Fish Market contains the original, protectable combination of rhythmic elements that became central to dembow and later reggaeton. The defense argues that the pattern draws from older, commonplace musical traditions, including the habanera, and cannot be monopolized as the property of one creator.
Judge André Birotte Jr. did not decide who owns the rhythm. Instead, he found that both sides presented credible but conflicting expert accounts about which musical elements are original, which are common, and whether their selection and arrangement can qualify for copyright protection. Those factual disputes, the court concluded, belong before a jury.
The case now moves into a second discovery phase focused on alleged infringement. That phase will examine questions such as whether defendants had access to Fish Market and whether songs including “Despacito,” “Tití Me Preguntó,” and “Dame Tu Cosita” copied protectable expression. A settlement is still possible before any trial.
Why the Music Industry Is Watching
Dembow is not a decorative element sitting on top of reggaeton; it is part of the genre's rhythmic foundation. If a jury finds the relevant pattern protectable and widely infringed, labels, publishers, producers, and artists could face a new era of clearance demands, retroactive credit negotiations, and litigation risk. If the defendants prevail, the result could reinforce the principle that foundational grooves and genre conventions must remain available for creators to use.
The deeper issue is where copyright should draw the line between protecting a specific recording and allowing a musical language to evolve across countries and generations. Reggaeton grew through Jamaican dancehall, Panamanian Spanish-language reggae, Puerto Rican underground music, Dominican dembow, hip-hop, and countless local reinterpretations. That history makes attribution essential — but it also makes ownership unusually complex.
The LatinMixx Take
This case is not simply Bad Bunny versus two producers. It is a test of whether the law can recognize the creators behind a foundational rhythm without giving one party control over the vocabulary of an entire genre.
For producers, the practical lesson is to document sessions, identify source material, save licenses, and settle splits before release day. For DJs, the case is a reminder that the rhythms moving a dance floor carry history and authorship even when audiences hear them as part of a familiar genre. For labels and publishers, relying on “everybody uses it” is not a rights strategy.
Whatever a jury eventually decides, the industry should use this moment to improve crediting, metadata, producer agreements, and education about Caribbean music history. Protecting originators and preserving creative freedom do not have to be opposing goals — but reaching that balance will demand more care than the business has often shown.