Background
Jamaican producer Cleveland “Clevie” Browne, the estate of his Steely & Clevie partner Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, and related rightsholders sued more than 100 performers, producers, publishers, and record companies. The defendants include Bad Bunny, Drake, Daddy Yankee, J Balvin, Karol G, and many other artists associated with reggaeton. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants copied protected material from four works: the Fish Market musical composition and sound recording, the Dem Bow composition, and the Pounder Dub Mix II sound recording.
The complaint alleged that Fish Market, created in 1989, combined kick, snare, hi-hat, percussion, synthesized tom, timbales, and bass into an original pattern. The instrumental for Shabba Ranks’s Dem Bow was alleged to be an alternate mix based on the same multitrack recording. According to the plaintiffs, the resulting dembow rhythm was copied or sampled in a vast catalog of commercially successful reggaeton recordings without authorization.
Multiple groups of defendants moved to dismiss. They argued, among other things, that the asserted musical elements were common and unprotectable, that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged copying of protectable expression, that foreign works could not support the claims, and that the complaint failed to identify a legally sufficient basis for contributory or vicarious liability.
The Court’s Holding
Judge André Birotte Jr. denied the motions to dismiss the direct-infringement claim. At the pleading stage, the plaintiffs had adequately alleged ownership, copying, and protectable expression. The court explained that although individual musical elements may be unprotectable, an original selection and arrangement of otherwise unprotectable elements can receive copyright protection. Whether the asserted combination was sufficiently original, and whether the accused songs copied protectable expression rather than commonplace building blocks, could not be resolved against the plaintiffs on the complaint alone.
The court rejected defendants’ argument that the asserted claims necessarily sought ownership of an entire musical genre. The complaint identified specific copyrighted works and described the particular rhythmic and instrumental combination allegedly copied. The court also declined to decide fact-dependent defenses such as estoppel at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The ruling was mixed, however. The court dismissed the contributory- and vicarious-infringement claim with leave to amend. The complaint treated many defendants collectively and did not adequately identify the third-party infringement, knowledge, material contribution, right to supervise, or practical ability to control needed for secondary liability. A defendant also cannot be secondarily liable merely for its own alleged direct infringement. The court required any amended complaint to plead contributory and vicarious infringement as separate claims with defendant-specific facts.
Key Takeaways
- The direct claims survived an early challenge. The court held only that the allegations were sufficient to proceed; it did not decide that the dembow pattern was protected or that any defendant infringed it.
- A combination can matter even when its components are common. The order recognized the established principle that an original selection and arrangement of unprotectable elements may itself be protectable.
- Group pleading was insufficient for secondary liability. Plaintiffs had to identify how particular defendants knowingly contributed to or controlled another party’s infringement.
- The case remained fact intensive. Questions about the contents of the works, originality, copying, and affirmative defenses were left for discovery and later proceedings.
Why It Matters
The lawsuit challenges the use of a rhythmic foundation associated with a large part of modern reggaeton, not merely one song. By allowing the direct claims to continue, the court permitted discovery into how the accused tracks were created and how the claimed material traveled from Jamaican dancehall into reggaeton. At the same time, the ruling did not grant anyone a copyright over the genre or over a basic rhythm. It addressed pleading sufficiency, leaving protectability and infringement for a fuller record.
The litigation later reached summary judgment. A July 2026 order initially left the central selection-and-arrangement theory for trial, but a September 2026 reconsideration order reversed that part of the ruling and granted defendants partial summary judgment on that theory.