Bad Bunny is urging a federal judge to revisit a pivotal ruling in a massive reggaeton copyright battle, arguing that the lawsuit is built on a fundamental legal flaw. The case, which has drawn in dozens of Latin music stars, centers on the foundational dembow rhythm—a syncopated drum pattern that underpins reggaeton and Latin urban music.

The underlying lawsuit, filed in 2021 by Jamaican reggae duo Steely and Clevie (the late Cleveland &34;Clevie&34; Brown and the late Wycliffe &34;Steely&34; Johnson), names Bad Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee, and numerous other artists and producers. The plaintiffs claim that the dembow rhythm originated with their 1989 song &34;Fish Market&34; and two later tracks, &34;Dem Bow&34; and &34;Pounder (Dub Mix II).&34; A judge previously ruled that a jury should decide whether the rhythm is protected by copyright—a decision that could have enormous implications for the reggaeton genre.

The Legal Argument

In a filing reviewed by Complex, Bad Bunny&39;s attorney Kenneth Freundlich argues that the court overlooked a critical issue: Steely and Clevie are asserting ownership of a musical pattern that does not appear in any single recording. &34;I think there&39;s no single work that contains all of the &39;Fish Market&39; elements. So how do you reconcile that with the notion that we need to have a coherent pattern? It seems to be problematic,&34; Freundlich said. Elsewhere in the filing, he characterizes the plaintiff as having &34;assembled a Frankenstein&34; across the three songs.

The motion seeks reconsideration of the earlier ruling, and if that fails, Bad Bunny is asking for permission to immediately appeal. &34;Resolving it now &39;may appreciably shorten the time, effort, or expense of conducting&39; the proceedings, especially where what lies ahead is a substantial similarity analysis of over one thousand works,&34; the filing reads.

Industry Support

The case has galvanized the Latin music community. According to additional filings reviewed by Complex, Drake—who collaborated with Bad Bunny on the 2018 hit &34;Mia&34;—has backed the request, along with a number of Latin music artists including Maluma, Wisin, Yandel, Ovy on the Drums, Myke Towers, De La Ghetto, and Carlos Vives. This widespread support underscores the industry&39;s concern that a broad copyright on the dembow rhythm could stifle creativity and lead to a flood of lawsuits.

Representing Steely and Clevie, attorney Stephen Doniger told Billboard it was &34;disappointing that defendants continue to push their false narrative,&34; adding, &34;Defendants offer nothing new and no basis for reconsideration. We hope the court will quickly deny this motion.&34;

Background: The Dembow Rhythm and Reggaeton

The dembow rhythm is the heartbeat of reggaeton, a genre that emerged from Puerto Rico in the 1990s and has since become a global phenomenon. The rhythm is characterized by a repetitive, syncopated drum pattern that combines a kick drum on beats one and three, a snare on beats two and four, and a closed hi-hat or shaker playing eighth notes. Steely and Clevie&39;s 1989 track &34;Fish Market&34; is often cited as an early example of this pattern, but its origins are disputed. The duo&39;s claim that they invented the rhythm has been challenged by musicologists and producers who point to earlier Jamaican dancehall and reggae tracks that used similar patterns.

The case has drawn comparisons to other high-profile music copyright disputes, such as the &34;Blurred Lines&34; case involving Robin Thicke and the estate of Marvin Gaye, and the dispute over the &34;Shape of You&34; hook involving Ed Sheeran. However, the reggaeton case is unique in that it seeks to copyright a foundational rhythmic pattern rather than a specific melody or lyric. If the plaintiffs prevail, it could set a precedent that threatens the entire genre.

Potential Consequences

Legal experts have weighed in on the implications. A ruling in favor of Steely and Clevie could require artists and producers to license the dembow rhythm before using it in new songs, potentially leading to costly litigation and chilling creativity. On the other hand, a dismissal could reinforce the principle that basic musical building blocks—like rhythms, chords, and scales—cannot be copyrighted.

Bad Bunny&39;s motion is the latest development in a case that has been closely watched by the music industry. The judge has not yet ruled on the request for reconsideration or the motion to appeal. Meanwhile, the case continues to generate headlines, with recent developments including the deaths of both Steely and Clevie—Wycliffe Johnson passed away in 2021 and Cleveland Brown in 2023—though their estates continue to pursue the lawsuit.

Broader Context: Copyright and Creativity

The debate over copyright protection for musical rhythms is not new. In the 1990s, the case of Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films established that sampling even a small portion of a sound recording could be infringement. However, the reggaeton case goes further by attempting to copyright a pattern that is not fixed in a single recording but is instead abstracted across multiple works. Critics argue that this could allow plaintiffs to claim ownership of a &34;style&34; or &34;genre,&34; which would undermine the free exchange of musical ideas.

Proponents of copyright protection for the dembow rhythm argue that Steely and Clevie deserve recognition and compensation for their contribution to music. &34;Fish Market&34; was a groundbreaking track that influenced generations of producers, and the duo should be credited if their work is used without permission. However, the case raises difficult questions about where to draw the line between inspiration and infringement.

What&39;s Next?

The court is expected to rule on Bad Bunny&39;s motion in the coming weeks. If the motion is denied, the case will proceed to trial, where a jury will decide whether the dembow rhythm is copyrightable. Given the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved, the case could take years to resolve. In the meantime, the reggaeton community is watching closely, with many hoping that the courts will protect the genre&39;s creative freedom.

The case has also sparked broader conversations about the diversity of musical traditions and the need to balance intellectual property rights with cultural exchange. As one observer noted, &34;Reggaeton is a product of cross-cultural influences from Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Panama, and the United States. To claim that one artist or duo owns its fundamental rhythm is to ignore the collaborative nature of music.&34;

Bad Bunny&39;s legal team remains optimistic. Freundlich emphasized that the motion is based on a straightforward legal argument that the court should reconsider. &34;We believe that once the court takes a closer look at the evidence, it will see that there is no single work that embodies the claimed pattern. The lawsuit is fundamentally flawed, and we are confident that justice will prevail.&34;

If Bad Bunny is granted permission to appeal, the case could reach a higher court, setting a precedent that could affect not only Latin music but also other genres that rely on shared rhythmic patterns. For now, the industry waits for the next move in this high-stakes legal drama.

Source:Yahoo Entertainment News