Copyrighting a Genre? A Lawsuit’s Potential Impact on Reggaetón Music
By Patrick Armand; Photo Credit: Eric Rojas
In January 2025, the reggaetón musical artist Bad Bunny released his newest album, DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS to critical and fan acclaim. The album quickly rose to number 1 on the Billboard 200, Bad Bunny’s fourth consecutive album to do so, further cementing reggaetón as one of the most popular musical genres in the world.[1] However, the genre of reggaetón is facing a copyright claim that could forever alter the genre as we know it and many of its greatest artists.
In a pivotal legal development, the estates of Jamaican producers Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson have initiated a lawsuit alleging that over 1,800 reggaeton tracks have unlawfully incorporated their 1989 instrumental, “Fish Market.”[2] This track is credited with introducing the “dembow riddim,” a foundational rhythm in reggaeton music.[3]
The lawsuit, filed in 2023, targets numerous prominent reggaeton artists, including Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee, J Balvin, and others.[4] The plaintiffs assert that these artists have sampled or interpolated the “Fish Market” rhythm without proper authorization, thereby infringing on their copyright.[5]
In May 2024, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. denied motions to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed.[6] The judge found it plausible that “Fish Market” is the progenitor of derivative works and that these works capture original elements of “Fish Market.”[7]
Central to this case is the question of whether a rhythm can be copyrighted. Traditionally, copyright law has protected melodies and lyrics, while rhythms have been challenging to safeguard due to their fundamental role as musical building blocks.[8] A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could set a precedent, potentially transforming core elements of reggaeton into licensable material.
The “dembow riddim” has deep roots in Caribbean music, tracing back to the habanera rhythm of the 19th century. This rhythm has been integral to various genres, including Cuban contradanza, Argentine tango, Puerto Rican bomba, and Haitian konpa. Its pervasive presence across these styles raises questions about the originality and ownership of such a widespread rhythmic pattern.
As the case advances into the discovery phase, the music industry awaits its potential ramifications. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could compel artists to alter their production practices, possibly diminishing the centrality of the “dembow riddim” in reggaeton and prompting a reevaluation of rhythm’s protectability under copyright law.
Conversely, a decision favoring the defendants might reinforce the notion that fundamental musical elements remain in the public domain, free for all to use.
This lawsuit not only challenges legal definitions but also prompts a deeper examination of cultural ownership, recognition, and the future trajectory of musical creativity.
Patrick Armand is a current 2L with a strong interest in business litigation and M&A. He is originally from Southern California and will be working in San Diego this summer.
[1] Jason Lipshutz, et al., ¿Cómo logró Bad Bunny una segunda semana tan enorme para su álbum ‘Debí Tirar Más Fotos’?, Billboard (Jan. 22, 2025), https://www.billboard.com/espanol/musica/bad-bunny-debi-tirar-mas-fotos-no-1-cinco-preguntas-candentes-1235881081/.
[2] Tom Breihan, “Fish Market” Lawsuit Can Move Forward With Claim That Over 1,800 Reggaetón Songs Ripped Off Steely & Clevie Riddim, Stereogum (May 30, 2024), https://www.stereogum.com/2265690/fish-market-lawsuit-can-move-forward-with-claim-that-over-1800-reggaeton-songs-ripped-off-steely-clevie-riddim/news/.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Edvard Pettersson, Reggaeton Stars Fail to Get Massive ‘Fish Market’ Copyright Case Thrown Out, Courthouse News Service (May 29, 2024), https://www.courthousenews.com/reggaeton-stars-fail-to-get-massive-fish-market-copyright-case-thrown-out/.
[7] Browne v. Donalds, No. 2:21-cv-02840-AB-AJR, 2024 WL 3468898 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 2024).
[8] Breihan, supra note 2.