Puerto Rican superstar Bad Bunny is asking a federal judge to reconsider a recent decision that kept a major reggaeton copyright lawsuit alive, arguing that the plaintiffs are relying on what his legal team calls a “Frankenstein” copyright claim.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2021 by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of the late Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, alleges that the iconic dembow rhythm, the signature beat that forms the backbone of reggaeton, was copied from their work. The case names Bad Bunny alongside dozens of other artists, including Karol G and Daddy Yankee, and covers nearly 1800 songs.
Earlier this month, a judge ruled that a jury must decide whether the dembow rhythm is protected by copyright, allowing the case to move forward.
However, in a new filing submitted on Wednesday (July 15), Bad Bunny’s attorneys argued that the ruling overlooked a critical issue. According to his lawyer, Kenneth Freundlich, the plaintiffs’ claimed copyright is based on combining elements from three different songs rather than a single copyrighted work.
“They have assembled a ‘Frankenstein’ across three separate songs,” Freundlich wrote, arguing that the alleged protected musical arrangement “does not exist in any single work.”
The lawsuit claims that Steely & Clevie’s 1989 track “Fish Market” introduced the original rhythm, while later songs “Dem Bow” and “Pounder (Dub Mix II)” further developed the beat that ultimately became the foundation of reggaeton.
Bad Bunny’s legal team contends that because the claimed rhythm is pieced together from multiple recordings, the plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive ownership over it. They are asking the court to reverse its earlier ruling.
If the judge declines to do so, the singer is requesting permission to immediately appeal the decision to a federal appeals court before the case proceeds through what could be years of discovery and trial involving more than 1,000 songs.
Attorneys for Steely & Clevie rejected Bad Bunny’s arguments. In a statement to Billboard, lawyer Stephen Doniger said the defendants continue to push a “false narrative” and argued that the latest motion presents no new legal basis for reconsideration.
