Can Someone Own Reggaeton?

Last month, a U.S. federal judge rejected motions to dismiss copyright infringement claims against dozens of high-profile artists. Bad Bunny, Karol G, Luis Fonsi, Pitbull and others are facing a major lawsuit for their unauthorized use of Steely & Clevie’s infamous 1989 “Fish Market” beat, commonly known in the reggaeton music genre. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. ruled the Jamaican duo have sufficient evidence to try for secondary copyright infringement of their riddim, which allegedly inspired the internationally renowned music style known as “Dem Bow.” The court dismissed claims for direct copyright infringement, leading music experts to believe there is still hope for the defendants to hold complete ownership of their music.??

According to court documents retrieved by DancehallMag, the lawsuit includes over 1,600 reggaeton songs. Notable songs include Drake’s “One Dance”; “Despacito Remix” featuring Justin Bieber and Daddy Yankee; “Taki Taki” by DJ Snake featuring Selena Gomez, Ozuna and Cardi B; and hundreds of other major hits, as well as small reggaeton artists. The defendants claim Steely & Clevie cannot take ownership of an entire music genre, and the drum and base elements they used are “commonplace.” Universal, Warner Music Group and Sony Music record labels and legal teams tried, but failed, to dismiss the case against their clients due to its lack of specificity. However, Judge Birotte ruled the beat is distinct enough to hold protections in the U.S. ?

This dispute raises awareness of broader implications for the future of IP in the music industry. If the heirs to Wycliff “Steely” Johnson and parties of Cleveland “Clevie” Browne are successful, it could set a precedent for how rhythms, beats and musical elements can be protected under copyright law. This can ultimately lead to stricter licensing requirements within genres, including for sampling. The verdict of this dispute could potentially reshape the landscape of music and copyright law, influencing every genre and how future artists can create music.???

Six years ago, the decision of the landmark case against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for allegedly copying Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up” brought light to the impact of IP in music. The Gaye estate settled for $5.3 million, originally $7.4 million, against the “Blurred Lines” singers, the largest number of damages granted in any copyright case in music. Gaye's estate sparked the five-year legal battle claiming the songs had the same “feel.” In a case study conducted by the University of Texas business school, Robert Fink, a musicologist, said this verdict set a precedent for future artists in limiting creative works and shared use of “sounds, grooves, vibes, tunes, and feels.”?

As the legal battle progresses, it will be interesting to see if this case will influence the verdict of Steely & Clevie’s case against over 100 defendants. Ultimately, this case serves as a reinforcement of the inevitable connections between protecting music genres but also honoring artistic legacies. Where is the line drawn to maintain IP rights while encouraging creativity? For now, the music world will hold its breath awaiting a decision that could redefine the boundaries of artistic innovation and copyright in the modern era.??