Judge declines ruling in dembow copyright case

U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. declined on July 2 to decide, as a matter of law, whether the reggaeton dembow rhythm at the center of a sprawling copyright fight is protectable under U.S. copyright law. The ruling denied summary judgment to both the plaintiffs tied to Jamaican production duo Steely & Clevie and the defendants, a group that includes Bad Bunny and other reggaeton artists and labels. The case now moves toward a jury trial in Los Angeles unless the parties settle first. The dispute has become one of the music industry’s broadest copyright cases because it reaches beyond a single song and into the rhythmic backbone of reggaeton itself. ### What exactly did the judge refuse to decide? Judge Birotte said the court could not resolve the case on summary judgment because the evidence raised factual disputes over “the identification, characterization, and protectability” of the musical elements in “Fish Market.” In the order, he wrote that those disputes went to “the core questions of originality and protectability” and were driven “almost entirely by competing expert analyses.” (courthousenews.com) The July 2 ruling means the judge did not award either side an early win on the threshold question in the first phase of the case: whether the plaintiffs’ asserted elements from “Fish Market” are original enough to receive copyright protection. That issue now appears headed for a fact-finder rather than a pretrial legal ruling. (courthousenews.com) ### Why is a 1989 Jamaican track at the center of a reggaeton case? “Fish Market,” recorded in 1989 by Jamaican duo Steely & Clevie, is the work the plaintiffs say contains the original rhythmic elements later associated with dembow. Courthouse News reported that the track was first recorded as a B-side to Gregory Peck’s “Poco Man Jam,” then licensed to Shabba Ranks for his 1990 song “Dem Bow,” which helped give the rhythm its name. (musicbusinessworldwide.com) The plaintiffs say later works, including “Pounder Riddim” and “Pounder Dub Mix II,” carried those elements forward and that numerous reggaeton songs later sampled or copied them. The defense has argued that the percussion arrangement is too common or insufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection on the terms the plaintiffs seek. (courthousenews.com) ### Which artists and companies are caught up in the case? Bad Bunny, J Balvin and major record-label defendants are among the parties identified in court coverage of the case. Music Business Worldwide said the broader defendant list also includes Pitbull, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber, with more than 150 artists implicated. (courthousenews.com) The scale of the lawsuit is one reason it has drawn attention beyond reggaeton. Reports on the ruling said the claims touch roughly 2,000 tracks, making the case potentially significant for catalogs, licensing and royalties if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail. That potential effect has been described by legal and industry observers in coverage of the ruling, not by the court itself. (courthousenews.com) ### Why didn’t the judge just throw the case out? The December 19, 2025 hearing on the summary judgment motions had already signaled the problem for both sides: dueling experts. Courthouse News reported that Birotte indicated then that originality turned on conflicting expert opinions and that he was unlikely to decide the issue as a matter of law. (musicbusinessworldwide.com) That left the court with a narrower procedural answer than the industry had been waiting for. The judge did not say Steely & Clevie own the dembow rhythm, and he did not say the defendants were free of infringement claims. He said the record was too disputed for summary judgment. ### What happens next in the case? (courthousenews.com) A jury trial is now the next major step unless the parties reach a settlement before then. Music Business Worldwide and Courthouse News both reported that the case is moving forward after the denial of summary judgment, with a jury expected to decide whether the “Fish Market” elements are original and protectable. (courthousenews.com) The Central District of California order dated July 2, 2026 remains the key court document for the current phase. Future filings in that court will show whether the parties narrow the claims, settle, or set a trial date. (musicbusinessworldwide.com) (courthousenews.com)