Bad Bunny wants a judge to reconsider a recent ruling that refused to dismiss a sprawling lawsuit over the origins of reggaeton, arguing his accusers are citing a “Frankenstein” copyright.
The ruling, issued earlier this month, said only a jury could decide whether reggae duo Steely & Clevie own the dembow rhythm — the boom-ch-boom-chick beat heard in almost every reggaeton song. The judge’s decision likely means years more of litigation in the massive case, which targets Bunny and dozens of other artists over nearly 2,000 songs.
But in a motion Wednesday (July 15), attorneys for the reggaeton superstar pleaded with the judge to overturn that ruling, arguing that the case has a fatal flaw that had not been properly acknowledged.
“Plaintiff’s supposed selection and arrangement does not exist in any single work,” writes Kenneth Freundlich, the star’s lawyer. “They have assembled a ‘Frankenstein’ across three separate songs.”
The huge case, filed in 2021 by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson against Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee and many others, claims their 1989 song “Fish Market” is the ultimate source of dembow. But it also asserts ownership over two later songs called “Dem Bow” and “Pounder (Dub Mix II)” — both of which were allegedly based on “Fish Market” and helped spawn the sound of reggaeton.
In the ruling earlier this month, the judge said that only a jury could decide whether the dembow rhythm is copyrightable. But in Wednesday’s motion, Bad Bunny’s lawyers said it had overlooked one thing: that Steely & Clevie’s alleged proprietary beat does not exist entirely in any of the three songs that allegedly spawned it.
“The consequence of this omission is concrete, and it is not merely a case management problem: Plaintiffs are asserting exclusive rights in a supposed selection and arrangement that does not exist,” Freundlich writes.
If the judge declines to review his own ruling, Bad Bunny wants an alternative route: The right to immediately appeal the ruling to a federal appeals court before the complex case gets bogged down in discovery and an eventual trial.
“Resolving it now may appreciably shorten the time, effort, or expense of conducting the proceedings, especially where what lies ahead is an [infringement] analysis of over one thousand works,” the star’s attorneys write.
An attorney for Steely & Clevie did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
