Federal judge rejects bid to end reggaeton copyright fight over “Fish Market,” saying jury must decide

A federal judge on July 2 declined to decide key parts of a large copyright case targeting reggaeton stars including Bad Bunny and Karol G, ruling that a jury, not the court, must determine whether the plaintiffs’ alleged source work is the original, copyrightable foundation of the genre’s signature dembow rhythm. The decision was issued as part of the case’s first phase and follows a long-awaited request for summary judgment.

The dispute centers on Cleveland “Clevie” Browne, the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, and the claim that their 1989 song “Fish Market” is the initial, protectable origin of the rhythmic pattern commonly described as “dembow,” often rendered in the boom-ch-boom-chick feel associated with modern reggaeton. According to the court-focused reporting, the plaintiffs sought a legal determination that “Fish Market” is indeed that foundational element, which would then guide how other tracks are assessed later in the litigation.

Billboard reported that the ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. in a “sprawling” case alleging extensive copying. The complaint describes nearly 2,000 tracks by more than 150 artists, and the litigation includes more than one major artist and multiple music-company defendants. In addition to Bad Bunny and Karol G, the list cited in the reporting includes Pitbull, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi, and Justin Bieber, along with units of all three major music companies.

In seeking summary judgment, the plaintiffs asked the court to make findings that would effectively narrow the dispute early by determining that “Fish Market” is a valid, protectable source. The reporting characterizes the plaintiffs’ request as aimed at resolving the “original” and “copyrightable” question for the dembow rhythm before reaching the broader assessment of each allegedly copied work.

Lawyers for many defendants opposed the request, arguing that the claimed sonic element is not uniquely traceable to a single protected work. They countered, as reported by Billboard, that the Steely & Clevie claim is invalid because the rhythm “exists in countless prior works and musical genres,” including references to older, well-known patterns such as the centuries-old habanera rhythm. Their position, as described in the coverage, was that the claimed dembow pattern cannot be treated as exclusively derived from “Fish Market.”

Judge Birotte’s decision, as described in the report, effectively “kicks the can down the road” by finding that both sides presented credible, directly conflicting cases on the contested issues. In that posture, the judge concluded that the questions require a jury trial. The immediate practical effect is that the court did not foreclose the plaintiffs’ theory through summary judgment, but it also did not resolve the defendants’ challenge in their favor at the early stage.

The order also sets expectations for how the litigation will proceed. With the dembow-origin question reserved for a jury, the case will move forward with the factual and evidentiary record developed for trial, rather than ending on a legal ruling about whether the “Fish Market” composition is the original copyrightable source. The next steps will depend on pretrial scheduling and how the parties frame the evidence around musical history, access, and similarity, but the judge’s key procedural message is that the factfinder will decide.

The ruling comes as U.S. courts continue to grapple with how copyright law applies to recurring musical rhythms that spread across genres and eras. For artists and music companies facing large-scale claims, the decision underscores that early motion practice may not end disputes where the record contains disputed musical origins and competing expert narratives, leaving outcomes to juries rather than judges deciding on the papers.