Copyright case highlights the limits of musical protection

By Enrique Cheang, E.C.V. & Asociados

A copyright dispute pending before a federal court in California is raising an important question for the music industry: how far can copyright protection extend when the material at issue is a musical rhythm that has become widely used across an entire genre?

The lawsuit was brought by Jamaican music producers Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the estate of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, together with Steely & Clevie Productions. The plaintiffs claim that elements of their 1989 instrumental track Fish Market were subsequently incorporated into the “dembow” rhythm that became a defining element of reggaetón. They allege that those elements were used without authorization in more than 1,800 songs involving more than 100 artists and other industry participants.

Among the defendants are Bad Bunny, Drake, J Balvin, Daddy Yankee, Justin Bieber, Karol G and numerous record labels, music publishers, producers and other companies. The case is being heard by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

At the centre of the dispute is not simply whether individual artists copied a song. The plaintiffs argue that a particular selection and arrangement of rhythmic and musical elements from Fish Market constitutes original expression protected by copyright. The defendants dispute this, arguing that the elements are common musical building blocks and that the combination claimed by the plaintiffs does not actually exist in a single copyrighted work.

In July 2026, the court declined to grant summary judgment to either side, finding that significant factual disputes remain regarding the identification, originality and protectability of the musical elements at issue. The decision means that the court has not determined that the rhythm is protected or that any of the defendants infringed copyright. The defendants have since asked the judge to reconsider the ruling, and the matter remains pending.

The case is a useful reminder that copyright protection does not automatically extend to every element contained in a creative work. In music, the distinction between protectable original expression and unprotectable ideas, techniques or common building blocks can be particularly difficult to establish.

For artists, producers, publishers and record companies, the dispute also highlights the importance of obtaining intellectual property advice before releasing or commercially exploiting music incorporating pre-existing material. A careful review of ownership, registrations, licences and the scope of potentially protected elements can help identify risks before they become costly disputes.