Full Breakdown
Bad Bunny and Reggaeton Stars Challenge Copyright Claim Over “Fish Market” Rhythm
8/16/2026, 1:57:05 AM
Core Event: Judge Weighs Reversal of July Ruling on “Fish Market” Rhythm
Federal Judge André Birotte Jr. opened a hearing in Los Angeles to consider a motion filed by Bad Bunny, Drake, Daddy Yankee and other reggaeton artists asking that his July order sending the dispute to a jury be reversed. Birotte said he would need several weeks to decide whether to uphold the earlier ruling that a jury must determine if an estimated 1,800 songs infringe the plaintiffs’ claimed “Fish Market Elements.”
Background & Context
Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the estate of the late Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, the Jamaican duo Steely & Clevie, filed three lawsuits between 2021 and 2022 alleging that more than 50 of the defendants’ songs copy the rhythm pattern from their 1989 track “Fish Market,” as well as from “Dem Bow” and “Pounder (Dub Mix II).” The cases were consolidated under *Browne v. Donalds* (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs assert that “Fish Market” is the original source of reggaeton’s signature dembow percussion pattern.
Data & Statistics
- Songs at issue: Approximately 1,800 reggaeton tracks by over 100 artists are alleged to contain the protected pattern.
- Specific targets: Drake’s “One Dance,” Bad Bunny’s “A Tu Merced,” Daddy Yankee’s “Gasolina,” and dozens of others.
- Lawsuits filed: Three separate actions filed in 2021-2022, now consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
Official Statements & Responses
- Judge Birotte described the case as a “nightmare” and said he “loves music” but must think “for a few weeks” before issuing an order.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel Stephen Doniger likened the dispute to cutting a recognizable slice from a Monet painting and calling the result a “Monet remix.”
- Defense counsel Kenneth Freundlich argued that the alleged “Fish Market Elements” are a “pastiche” assembled from separate portions of different songs, not a single protectable work. He cited sworn testimony that the two-measure timbale loop identified in the complaint is drawn from two non-contiguous bars of “Fish Market.”
Criticism & Opposition
- Plaintiffs’ rebuttal: Doniger maintained that a “genuine factual dispute” exists over whether the two-bar slice is truly part of “Fish Market,” emphasizing that the pattern is repeated “at different times” within the composition.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Pattern location dispute: Plaintiffs assert a continuous two-bar timbale pattern exists in “Fish Market.” Defense cites testimony that the bars come from separate sections (opening measure and bar 22), creating a factual disagreement that has not been resolved.
- Legal definition gap: The case hinges on whether the identified elements satisfy the requirement of a single, original work, a question the parties present with opposing interpretations but without clear judicial precedent.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This has been shapeshifting from day one,” — Kenneth Freundlich
- “It’s ‘Fish Market.’ What does that mean? That’s a euphemism for something that doesn’t exist.” — Kenneth Freundlich
- “There is a genuine factual dispute as to whether or not that two-bar slice is out of ‘Fish Market.’ It’s like if I took a slice of a recognizable Monet painting, then I repeated it, and everyone was like, that’s a Monet remix. That’s what this case is.” — Stephen Doniger
What’s Next
Judge Birotte is expected to issue an order in the coming weeks. If he upholds the July ruling, the defendants plan to seek immediate appellate review by the Ninth Circuit. The outcome will shape how rhythm-based claims are evaluated in the music industry.
