In a Los Angeles courtroom on Friday, lawyers representing Bad Bunny, Drake, and a host of reggaeton’s biggest stars faced off against attorneys for the Jamaican reggae duo Steely & Clevie. Presiding Judge André Birotte Jr. raised pointed questions regarding a significant ruling he issued last month, which had established that a jury must determine whether approximately 1,800 reggaeton songs, by more than 100 artists, infringed composition copyrights held by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson. The plaintiffs argue that their 1989 track “Fish Market” is the original source of the dembow rhythm, a key percussion pattern in the reggaeton genre.
Claims of Copyright Infringement
The judge’s ruling in July requires examination of whether certain musical elements described as the “Fish Market Elements” are indeed a violation of copyright. Responding to this, Bad Bunny’s legal team moved for reconsideration of the judge’s ruling, joined later by lawyers for other artists. They argued that the musical combinations identified by the judge as potentially protectable were, in fact, a “pastiche” created from various excerpts of different songs.
Arguments from Both Sides
Kenneth Freundlich, lead counsel for Bad Bunny, cited sworn testimony from Clevie Browne, who stated that the identified two-measure pattern associated with “Fish Market” is actually composed of disconnected bars within the song itself. He elaborated that while the first bar comes from the song’s opening measure, the second comes from bar 22. Freundlich argued that the two-bar timbale loop claimed as protectable appears solely in another track, “Pounder (Dub Mix II),” which does not include the tambourine sound linked to “Fish Market.” Furthermore, he noted that Steely & Clevie do not possess the composition copyright for “Pounder,” only the rights to its sound recording, which is owned by Jamaican producer Dennis “the Menace” Halliburton.
Freundlich emphasized the importance of a single cohesive work in copyright claims, asserting: “It’s our position that a selection arrangement can’t be based on a pastiche of compositions. The case has been shape-shifting from day one.”
Judge’s Inquiry and Reactions
Beginning the hearing, Judge Birotte alluded to the complexities of the case, stating, “I’ve been asked to mull this nightmare over some more.” He directly questioned Steely & Clevie’s lawyers, pushing them to clarify their claim that the pertinent pattern exists in “Fish Market,” especially in light of testimony indicating it was derived from separate sections. Plaintiffs’ attorney Benjamin Tookey responded by asserting a “consecutive two-bar timbale pattern” can be found in the song at differing points.
Freundlich reacted strongly, asserting, “This is the first time we’ve heard them say the two-measure pattern is in ‘Fish Market.’ We’ve never heard that before, and that directly contradicts their client under oath.” He accused the plaintiffs of claiming rights to an indistinct mix of elements taken from different songs, coining Steely & Clevie’s approach as a “Frankenstein” assembly.
In defense, plaintiffs’ lawyer Stephen M. Doniger refuted the characterization by stating, “This Frankenstein theory is a great soundbite, but it’s inaccurate.” He maintained that the similarities between “Fish Market” and “Pounder” warrant further investigation.
Conclusion and Next Steps
As the lengthy hearing wrapped up, Judge Birotte indicated that he would take time to deliberate on the matter, advising the lawyers that a decision could take weeks. Bad Bunny’s legal team has requested either a reversal of the July ruling or the opportunity for defendants to immediately appeal. Freundlich cautioned that moving forward to trial could turn into “a complete mess,” involving extensive preparations for 1,800 songs by numerous well-known artists, potentially extending the timeline into 2035.
Facing these allegations, Bad Bunny has denied infringing on Steely & Clevie’s work across multiple tracks, including “Tití Me Preguntó,” “Un Ratito,” and “Una Vez.” Regardless of the judge’s eventual decision, the case will proceed with ongoing copyright claims concerning alleged unauthorized samples of sound recordings owned by the plaintiffs.
