FOLLOW US

INSIDE THIS REPORT

• A federal judge denied summary judgment to both sides.
• The case centers on whether “Fish Market” contains protectable musical expression.
• No artist has been found liable, but the fight is moving closer to trial.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

LOS ANGELES — A legal fight over the rhythm at the heart of modern reggaeton is not going away quietly.

A California federal judge has refused to hand Bad Bunny, his label Rimas Music, and a broad group of music-industry defendants an early victory in a copyright battle that reaches into the foundational musical architecture of reggaeton. But the plaintiffs did not win outright either.

In a July 1 order made public Thursday, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. denied competing motions for summary judgment in the sprawling lawsuit brought by Cleveland Constantine Browne, Steely and Clevie Productions Ltd., Carl Gibson, and Shea Johnson. The court found that critical factual disputes remain over the identification, characterization, originality, and legal protectability of the musical elements at issue.

The result is legally significant because it prevents the case from being decided by a judge at this stage. Instead, the most consequential questions surrounding the disputed rhythm — whether it contains copyrightable expression and whether that expression deserves protection — must ultimately be resolved by a factfinder.

The case centers on “Fish Market,” an instrumental track created in 1989 by Jamaican producers Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the late Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson. According to the court record, Browne contributed drum and percussion components while Johnson supplied bassline, melodic, and harmonic elements. The next year, Shabba Ranks released “Dem Bow,” using the instrumental backing associated with “Fish Market” beneath a vocal performance.

That historical connection is why this lawsuit carries far greater implications than a typical sample dispute.

The plaintiffs contend that protectable elements originating in “Fish Market” and related works were copied into later recordings. The defendants, meanwhile, argue that the disputed rhythms, drum patterns, and musical building blocks are too common, conventional, or rooted in prior musical traditions to be monopolized through copyright law.

Judge Birotte did not choose either version of the story.

Instead, he concluded that both sides presented credible but conflicting expert testimony about what musical elements exist in “Fish Market,” whether those elements are commonplace or original, how they function musically, and whether their combination amounts to a protectable selection and arrangement. The judge wrote that the case has become a classic “battle of the experts” that cannot be resolved through summary judgment.

That distinction matters enormously.

Copyright law does not protect an entire genre, a general feel, a tempo, or every individual sound within a song. Courts must filter out ideas, common musical conventions, public-domain material, and other unprotectable elements before deciding whether a work contains protectable creative expression. But a particular selection, coordination, or arrangement of otherwise ordinary elements can still qualify for protection if the combination itself reflects sufficient originality.

In practical terms, this ruling does not mean that Browne and the other plaintiffs now own reggaeton, dembow, or every song built on a familiar Caribbean rhythmic pulse. Nor does it mean Bad Bunny or any other defendant has been found to have copied protected material.

What it does mean is that the defense failed to convince the court that the claimed “Fish Market” elements were unquestionably too generic to protect as a matter of law. At the same time, the plaintiffs failed to obtain a ruling declaring those elements protected before trial.

That is the legal danger zone now facing the artists, labels, publishers, and producers caught in the case.

Judge Birotte’s order makes clear that the current phase of litigation was deliberately limited. The court was not yet deciding whether the defendants had access to the plaintiffs’ work, whether later songs are substantially similar, whether ownership and standing issues will defeat any claims, or what damages could follow. Those issues remain for later stages, if the case continues beyond the originality and protectability dispute.

The court also ruled on a series of expert-witness challenges. Most of the major musicology experts survived exclusion efforts, preserving the competing analyses that now sit at the center of the case. The judge granted one Daubert challenge and partially granted another, but the core expert dispute over “Fish Market” remains intact.

For Bad Bunny and the other defendants, the ruling is not a final loss — but it is a costly failure to end the case before a jury could hear it. For the plaintiffs, it is not a declaration of ownership or infringement — but it keeps alive a lawsuit that many in the music business hoped would be dismissed as an attempt to copyright the building blocks of a genre.

The parties have been ordered to meet, confer, and submit a joint proposed plan for the remainder of the case within 21 days.

That next filing may determine whether this case moves toward a full jury trial, additional discovery, settlement pressure, or separate proceedings involving the many accused works and defendants.

The bigger question is no longer whether this lawsuit is serious. A federal judge has already answered that.

The question now is whether a jury will conclude that the rhythm beneath reggaeton’s global rise was merely a shared musical language — or a protectable creative work whose alleged use across the industry carries legal consequences.

👉 Follow us on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald