Muhammad Ibadurrohman
A federal judge has ruled that only a jury can determine whether the iconic reggaeton dembow rhythm was invented by Jamaican production duo Steely & Clevie, deferring a decision in a sprawling copyright lawsuit that targets an unprecedented roster of over 150 artists, including global superstars Bad Bunny, Karol G, Drake, and Justin Bieber. The long-anticipated summary judgment ruling, issued by Judge André Birotte Jr. on Thursday, July 2, 2026, ensures that the contentious legal battle over the rhythmic foundation of a multi-billion-dollar genre will proceed to a jury trial, marking a pivotal moment in music intellectual property law.
The Heart of the Dispute: "Fish Market" and the Dembow Riddim
At the core of this intricate legal challenge is the claim by Cleveland "Clevie" Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson that their 1989 track, "Fish Market," is the original, copyrightable source of the ubiquitous "dembow" rhythm. This distinctive percussion pattern, often described as a "boom-ch-boom-chick" beat, has become the undeniable hallmark of reggaeton, underpinning countless chart-topping hits and defining the genre’s infectious energy. The plaintiffs allege that nearly 2,000 tracks by a vast array of artists, including some of the biggest names in contemporary music, have unlawfully copied this foundational rhythm.
The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for several years, entered its initial phase focused on the question of originality and copyrightability. Steely & Clevie’s legal team sought a summary judgment, asking Judge Birotte Jr. to definitively rule that "Fish Market" introduced a novel and protectable musical element. They argued that the specific arrangement of seven discrete percussive elements within the "Dem Bow Riddim" (the instrumental version of "Fish Market") was uniquely their creation and had no direct precedent in earlier works.
However, lawyers representing the extensive list of defendants—which also includes genre pioneers like Daddy Yankee, pop sensation Luis Fonsi, and major music labels such as Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group—strongly countered this assertion. Their defense posited that the dembow rhythm, or its essential components, is not an original creation but rather a common sonic element that "exists in countless prior works and musical genres." They cited historical antecedents, notably drawing parallels to the centuries-old habanera rhythm, a Cuban musical form characterized by a distinct syncopated beat, suggesting that the "dembow" pattern is part of a broader, uncopyrightable musical heritage.
Judge Birotte Jr.’s Rationale: A Conflict of Credible Cases
Judge Birotte Jr.’s ruling to deny summary judgment for both sides underscores the profound complexity of the dispute. In his decision, first reported by Billboard, the judge articulated that both the plaintiffs and defendants have presented "competing, facially credible expert opinions" that directly contradict each other regarding the originality and protectability of the dembow rhythm.
"The evidentiary record presents competing, facially credible expert opinions regarding what elements exist in the claimed works, how those elements function musically, whether they are commonplace or original, and whether they form a coherent and protectable selection and arrangement," Judge Birotte Jr. wrote. He further elaborated, stating, "Virtually none of these facts fall into the undisputed category that the court may consider on a motion for summary judgment. Put simply, plaintiffs’ experts advance one account of the relevant musical features and their significance, while defendants’ experts offer a fundamentally different interpretation of those same features. These are classic disputes of fact, not law."
This judicial stance means that the intricate musical analysis, the historical tracing of rhythmic patterns, and the ultimate determination of whether Steely & Clevie’s contribution to "Fish Market" meets the legal threshold for copyrightable originality are matters that must be deliberated and decided by a jury. The ruling effectively "kicks the can down the road," pushing the core question of musical invention into the hands of laypeople rather than a legal scholar.
The Genesis of Dembow: From Dancehall to Global Phenomenon
To fully grasp the magnitude of this lawsuit, one must understand the profound historical and cultural journey of the dembow rhythm. Steely & Clevie, comprised of Wycliffe "Steely" Johnson and Cleveland "Clevie" Browne, were legendary figures in Jamaican dancehall production. Their "Dem Bow Riddim" was an instrumental track featured on their 1989 album, The Jam. While "Fish Market" was the vocal version by Michigan & Smiley that popularized the riddim, it was the instrumental’s raw, insistent energy that truly resonated and spread across the Caribbean.
The "Dem Bow Riddim" was characterized by its driving, syncopated drum machine pattern, often produced using a Casio MT-40 keyboard or similar electronic instruments prevalent in late 1980s dancehall. Its hypnotic repetition and unique feel quickly became a staple in Panamanian reggae en español, where artists like El General began experimenting with it. From Panama, the rhythm migrated to Puerto Rico in the early 1990s, where it fused with hip-hop and local musical traditions to give birth to what would eventually be known as reggaeton.
Pioneering Puerto Rican producers and artists, including DJ Playero, DJ Nelson, and Vico C, embraced and evolved the dembow, layering it with Spanish-language rapping and singing, eventually creating a distinct sound that resonated deeply with urban youth. Over the decades, the dembow rhythm has remained the unshakeable backbone of reggaeton, adapting and morphing but always retaining its identifiable pulse. It forms the rhythmic bedrock of hits like Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee’s "Despacito," Bad Bunny’s "Tití Me Preguntó," and El Chombo’s "Dame Tu Cosita," all of which are explicitly named in the lawsuit.
The Stakes: An Entire Genre on Trial
The sheer scope of this lawsuit is unprecedented, targeting more than 150 artists, hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages, and threatening to reshape the landscape of an entire musical genre. Reggaeton has exploded into a global cultural and economic powerhouse, with artists like Bad Bunny routinely breaking streaming records, selling out stadiums worldwide, and headlining major events such as the Super Bowl Halftime Show, as evidenced by his performance at Super Bowl LX in 2026. The genre’s commercial success is staggering, contributing significantly to the global music industry’s revenue, estimated to be in the tens of billions annually.
Legal experts have issued stark warnings about the potential ramifications should Steely & Clevie prevail. As Duke University law professor Jennifer Jenkins told Billboard back in 2023, a win for the plaintiffs "would confer a monopoly over an entire genre, something unprecedented in music copyright litigation." Such an outcome could lead to a wave of licensing demands, potentially crippling smaller artists and fundamentally altering how reggaeton is created, distributed, and monetized. It could also set a dangerous precedent for future copyright claims on fundamental rhythmic elements across all musical genres.
The legal battle highlights the perennial challenge in music copyright: where does inspiration end and infringement begin, especially for fundamental rhythmic patterns? Unlike melodies or lyrical phrases, which often have clearer lines of originality, rhythms are often viewed as building blocks, evolving through cultural exchange and adaptation. The defendants’ argument that the dembow rhythm’s elements are "commonplace" and can be traced to earlier forms like the habanera rhythm directly addresses this complexity, suggesting that certain musical elements are part of a public domain of inspiration rather than individual ownership.
Reactions and the Road Ahead
Following the ruling, Stephen Doniger, a lawyer representing Steely & Clevie, expressed a mix of satisfaction and disappointment. "We are pleased that the court largely rejected the defendants’ arguments but disappointed that it did not grant our client’s affirmative summary judgment motion," Doniger stated to Billboard. He reiterated confidence in his clients’ position, adding, "It is hard to imagine how any jury could find the Dem Bow Riddim to be anything other than an original and protectable work given the undisputed evidence that it is made up of seven discrete elements combined in a way that no one has found in any work predating our clients’ ‘Fish Market.’ That said, we have little doubt that a jury will see through [the defendants’] arguments and we look forward to the next steps in this case.”
The legal team representing the majority of the defendants did not immediately return requests for comment, a common practice in ongoing high-stakes litigation. Their silence likely reflects a strategic decision to prepare for the next phases of the lawsuit, which are now clearly defined.
The judge’s ruling initiates a second phase of discovery. This stage will focus on the question of infringement, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the more than 150 defendants had "access" to "Fish Market" and subsequently "copied" its protectable elements in their respective songs. This phase will involve extensive examination of musical compositions, production timelines, and potential chains of influence within the music industry. Following this, further legal briefing and a potential jury trial will ensue, unless all the numerous litigants can reach a comprehensive settlement agreement—a challenging prospect given the number of parties involved and the vast sums at stake.
Broader Implications for Music and Intellectual Property
Beyond the immediate financial consequences, this lawsuit carries profound implications for the broader music industry and the very definition of intellectual property in a globalized, sample-heavy musical landscape. It raises critical questions about the balance between protecting creators’ rights and fostering creative freedom and evolution within genres built on shared cultural heritage.
Should the jury find in favor of Steely & Clevie regarding the originality of dembow, it could fundamentally alter how producers and artists approach rhythm creation and appropriation, particularly within genres like hip-hop, electronic music, and global pop, which frequently build upon existing rhythmic foundations. It might lead to increased caution, more extensive licensing, and potentially stifle spontaneous innovation if creators fear retroactive claims on fundamental elements. Conversely, if the jury finds against Steely & Clevie, it could reinforce the idea that basic rhythmic patterns are part of a common musical language, free for all to use and adapt, thus safeguarding the collaborative and evolutionary nature of musical genres.
Regardless of the eventual outcome, the "dembow" lawsuit will undoubtedly be a landmark case, shaping future discussions and legal precedents concerning musical copyright for generations to come. It underscores the increasing scrutiny on foundational musical elements as global hits blur the lines between genre, origin, and ownership, ultimately forcing the legal system to grapple with the complex, often intangible, essence of musical creation.
