The reggaeton dembow copyright lawsuit is the largest infringement case in the genre’s history: Jamaican producers Steely & Clevie allege that a drum pattern they created in 1989 was copied in more than 1,800 songs by artists including Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi, Karol G, and J Balvin. Filed in April 2021 in federal court in Los Angeles, the case names over 150 defendants and units of every major record label. As of early 2026, it has survived most challenges and sits at the summary judgment stage, with Judge André Birotte Jr. expected to rule by the end of January 2026.
The 1989 Beat at the Center of the Case
Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the late Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson were one of Jamaica’s most prolific production duos. In 1989 they created an instrumental called “Fish Market,” built around a specific arrangement of kick drum, snare, and hi-hat. That instrumental became the rhythmic foundation for Shabba Ranks’ 1990 hit “Dem Bow,” which gave the beat the name most people know it by today.
The pattern didn’t stay in Jamaica. In the early 1990s, Jamaican and Panamanian collaborators reworked it at a studio in Long Island, New York, producing a version known as “Pounder Dub Mix II” for Panamanian vocalist Nando Boom. From Panama the beat moved to Puerto Rico, where underground producers like DJ Playero and DJ Negro chopped and looped it on mixtapes through the mid-1990s. By the early 2000s, the pattern had become so central to the emerging Puerto Rican sound that the genre was briefly called “dembow” before settling on the name reggaeton.
The plaintiffs argue this entire lineage traces back to their 1989 composition, and that every commercial use of that rhythmic DNA required their permission.
Who Filed the Lawsuit and Who Was Sued
Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson died in 2009. The suit was brought by Cleveland Browne and Johnson’s estate. The original complaint was filed on April 1, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:21-cv-02840, before Judge Birotte. It has been amended several times, with a consolidated version filed in mid-2022 merging related actions into one proceeding.
The defendant list runs across Latin and pop music. Named artists include Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee, Pitbull, Karol G, Rauw Alejandro, Luis Fonsi, J Balvin, Anitta, Becky G, Maluma, Justin Bieber, Ricky Martin, Stefflon Don, and Enrique Iglesias. The complaint specifically cites 56 tracks, among them Daddy Yankee’s “Gasolina” and the Fonsi/Daddy Yankee collaboration “Despacito.”
Units of Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis, and Kobalt are also named. Including the labels matters because they control distribution, collect revenue, and hold rights to many of the recordings at issue.
What the Plaintiffs Say Was Copied
The technical heart of the dispute is a specific percussive arrangement: the interplay of a heavy kick, a crisp snare, and a particular hi-hat pattern, layered with elements like a shaker or tambourine. The plaintiffs argue these are not random sounds but curated choices whose syncopation and timing form a protectable musical signature.
Federal copyright law protects a work if it is original and fixed in a tangible medium.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 102 – Subject Matter of Copyright: In General Originality does not require novelty or artistic merit; the Supreme Court has said a work needs only a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity.2U.S. Copyright Office. What is Copyright? The plaintiffs argue their arrangement clears that bar.
One point sharply expands the case’s reach. Copyright law treats a song’s underlying composition and its sound recording as two separate works.3U.S. Copyright Office. Musical Works, Sound Recordings The plaintiffs’ strongest claims are based on the composition, meaning the rhythmic arrangement itself, not on anyone sampling the original audio. A producer who programs a dembow beat from scratch in studio software uses no audio from the 1989 recording, but if the pattern recreated is substantially similar to the protected composition, the plaintiffs contend that is still infringement. That is how the case potentially reaches roughly 1,800 songs rather than only tracks that sampled the original.
Composition owners hold exclusive rights to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, and perform it publicly.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 106 – Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works If the dembow pattern is a protectable composition, anyone who recreated it without a license potentially violated several of those rights at once.
The Defense: Genre Convention, Not Composition
More than 100 of the named defendants filed motions to dismiss, collectively arguing that letting one party own a foundational beat would effectively let someone copyright a genre.
Their strongest legal argument invokes scènes à faire, the doctrine that elements so standard within a genre they are expected by audiences are not protectable. The defendants argue the dembow rhythm is a genre convention of reggaeton and dancehall, not a copyrightable composition. They point to older Afro-Caribbean patterns: the 3-2 son clave uses a 3+3+2 structure in its first measure, and the same underlying structure appears in the habanera bass line dating back to the 1800s. On that view, Steely & Clevie assembled commonly available rhythmic building blocks rather than creating something new.
Judge Birotte acknowledged the argument has weight but declined to resolve it on a motion to dismiss. The court said examining the full history of reggaeton and dancehall to determine whether the shared elements are commonplace was not something it was prepared to do at that early stage. That analysis would require expert testimony and detailed musical comparison.
Where the Case Stands
The lawsuit has cleared several procedural hurdles. Judge Birotte denied most of the motions to dismiss, allowing the core infringement claims based on the underlying musical composition to move forward. His reasoning was practical: if the protected elements of “Fish Market” were copied, it does not matter whether a defendant copied directly from the 1989 recording or indirectly through a later derivative like “Dem Bow” or “Pounder Dub Mix II.” The infringement, if it occurred, traces back to the original composition either way.
In December 2025, the court heard cross-motions for summary judgment, where both sides asked the judge to rule in their favor without a trial. Judge Birotte did not rule from the bench and indicated he would try to issue a decision by the end of January 2026. If summary judgment is denied, the case would proceed to trial.
What’s at Stake Financially
The potential exposure is driven by the sheer number of allegedly infringing works. Copyright law gives plaintiffs two paths to damages: actual damages (lost royalties plus the infringer’s profits attributable to the infringement) or statutory damages.
Statutory damages range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed, as the court considers just. If infringement is proven willful, the ceiling jumps to $150,000 per work. If the infringer proves they had no reason to believe they were infringing, the floor drops to $200.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 504 – Remedies for Infringement: Damages and Profits Multiplied across hundreds or thousands of tracks, the math becomes enormous. Even at the statutory minimum, 1,800 songs would produce $1.35 million. At $30,000 per work, the number crosses $54 million.
The court also has discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, whether that is the plaintiff or the defendant. In a case this large, with this many defendants represented by major firms, those fees would be substantial no matter which side wins.
What a Ruling Could Mean for Producers
A ruling that the dembow rhythm is protectable could force producers to license a beat pattern that most of the industry has treated as free to use for three decades. The practical impact would extend beyond reggaeton, since the pattern appears in pop, hip-hop, and electronic music globally. Artists and producers would have to assess whether their rhythmic choices cross the line from genre convention into protectable territory.
A ruling for the defendants would reinforce the principle that rhythmic patterns, even distinctive ones, sit below the threshold of copyrightable expression. That outcome would be consistent with how courts have historically treated basic musical building blocks, but it would frustrate creators who feel their arrangements are being exploited without compensation. Either way, the decision will set a meaningful precedent for where genre ends and ownership begins.