Bad Bunny triumphs in massive reggaeton legal fight
Judge Strikes Down Claim Over Reggaeton Rhythm, Ending Massive Copyright Lawsuit
In a landmark ruling that sounds like a victory dance, a federal judge has dramatically altered the course of a massive copyright lawsuit targeting the origins of reggaeton. The court struck down a large portion of the claims against artists over the ownership of the core dembow rhythm, clearing the way for major figures in the genre to move forward.
The decision, delivered by Judge André Birotte Jr., was a rare reversal of an earlier ruling, which had previously sent the sprawling case—which involved Bad Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee, and dozens of other artists—to a lengthy trial.
The dispute at the heart of the legal battle centered on the boom-ch-boom-chick beat that defines reggaeton. The lawsuit itself was filed by Steely & Clevie, claiming their 1989 song “Fish Market” was the ultimate source of this rhythm. They were seeking to assert ownership over the foundational musical elements used across nearly 2,000 songs by more than 150 artists, including Pitbull, Drake, and Justin Bieber.
Critics and defendants had warned that this extraordinary case sought to establish a monopoly over an entire musical genre. However, the judge’s analysis shifted the focus from the rhythm itself to the fundamental principles of copyright law.
Judge Birotte determined that the plaintiffs had failed to clearly identify a single copyrighted work that contained the alleged protectable selection and arrangement. He concluded that U.S. copyright law does not extend protection to an “abstract amalgamation of elements extracted from multiple independently existing works.” For protection to be granted, the elements must exist entirely within a single song, not merely be a “collection of similarities assembled for purposes of litigation.”
This crucial finding effectively invalidated the theory that the alleged dembow rhythm could be copyrighted simply by reverse-engineering it from existing tracks. The judge stated that because the plaintiffs could not identify a single source, they could not proceed on that theory of law.
The ruling is a significant blow against the pursuit of genre-wide copyright monopolies and marks a major victory for Bad Bunny and the other defendants. While litigation remains over claims involving direct sampling of Steely & Clevie’s sound recordings, this decision successfully dismantled a large portion of the dispute concerning the compositional elements that formed the genre’s signature beat.
Bad Bunny’s legal team praised the judge for delivering a decision that saw the case for what it was. As attorney Kenneth D. Freundlich commented, “You cannot copyright a rhythm by reverse-engineering it from three different songs once you’re already in court. Copyright protects what an artist actually created, not a collage assembled in litigation. That is what the court rejected today.”
Buy on Amazon
Credit
