LOS ANGELES — The legal battle over the copyright status of the Dem Bow riddim — the drum-and-bass foundation of reggaeton — has intensified, with Bad Bunny (Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio), Drake (Aubrey Graham), and a coalition of major music companies filing new motions urging the court to declare the rhythm too commonplace to be protected under U.S. copyright law.
Bad Bunny and Rimas Music: “Originality Does Not Equal Protectability”
On August 4, 2025, Bad Bunny and his label Rimas Music filed a motion dismissing the claims brought by Jamaican producers Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the estate of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson.
The filing directly challenged the plaintiffs’ framing of the case:
“Originality does not equal protectability. Stated differently, an original work is not necessarily protectable.”
It further accused the plaintiffs of mischaracterizing their own compositions:
“This convenient diminution of the focus of this phase reveals the flimsiness of Plaintiffs’ claim that they own exclusive copyrights in an unprotectable ever-changing ‘combination’ that does not actually exist in any of their works.”
The defense pointed to extensive expert testimony from musicologists documenting similar rhythmic patterns across decades of dancehall and reggaeton, undermining any claim of uniqueness.
Drake Joins the Defense: Full Support of Arguments
On August 5, 2025, Drake formally entered the dispute, filing a motion through his attorneys at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp that aligned fully with Bad Bunny’s position.
His brief explicitly states:
“Defendants Aubrey Drake Graham and Sound 1.0 Catalogue LP… respectfully join in each and every one of the arguments raised… in their entirety, including without limitation the portion… addressing Plaintiffs’ misinterpretation of Phase I of this case.”
Drake’s team pressed the court to dismiss the case outright:
“For the reasons set forth… the MSK Defendants respectfully request that the Court… deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, on the ground that the relevant portions of Plaintiffs’ claimed works are not ‘original or otherwise protectable under copyright law.’”
The 110-Page Joint Brief: A United Front
A 110-page consolidated motion obtained by WMV, was filed on behalf of all defendants, including Bad Bunny, Drake, Rimas, Sony, Universal, and others. The brief expands the defense, framing the Dem Bow riddim as a cultural convention rather than an original creation.
It emphasized:
“The so-called ‘Dem Bow Riddim’ is not original expression but an unprotectable compilation of commonplace musical building blocks that have appeared in countless prior works.”
And warned of the wider consequences of granting copyright over such a pattern:
“Plaintiffs seek a monopoly over a rhythm that belongs to the culture at large. Copyright law does not and cannot stretch this far.”
At issue is whether the Dem Bow riddim — first popularized by Jamaican producers Steely & Clevie in the late 1980s — can be copyrighted as a unique musical work, or whether it functions as an open foundation, much like a blues progression in rock or a breakbeat in hip-hop.
1800 songs, including Bad Bunny and Drake’s 2018 hit MIA are alleged to have infringed upon Steely & Clevie’s Fish Market Riddim. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on September 26, 2025 in Los Angeles. A ruling in favor of the defendants could reset the boundaries of copyright in global popular music and reaffirm that riddims, by nature, are shared cultural frameworks rather than private property.
