Defendants in the high-profile Reggaeton vs. Dancehall copyright case—featuring major record labels and global stars—have filed a motion dated May 23, 2025, seeking summary judgment. The motion argues that the drum patterns at the heart of the lawsuit are not original compositions by Jamaican producers Steely & Clevie, but instead derive from widely used global and Caribbean musical traditions, including the centuries-old habanera rhythm and the 1960s surf beat.
According to court documents obtained by World Music Views (WMV), the defense maintains that these rhythms were in circulation long before the release of “Fish Market,” a 1989 track often credited with laying the groundwork for reggaeton’s “dembow riddim.” They cite musical precedents in Afro-Cuban genres, surf rock, and Jamaican Pentecostal revival music as evidence that the patterns in question are part of long-standing musical heritage.
The defendants further contend that elements such as synthesized bass lines, tom drums, and hi-hats are tied to performance or sound recording—areas that are not protected under composition copyright law.
To bolster their case, the Pryor Cashman legal team submitted 27 exhibits to the California Central District Court, including a four page declaration from Dr. Wayne Marshall, coeditor of Reggaeton (Duke University Press, 2009), ethnomusicologist and assistant professor at Berklee College of Music. In his expert testimony, Marshall asserts that the rhythms in Steely & Clevie’s “Fish Market,” “Dem Bow,” and “Pounder” are neither original nor copyrightable.
“Steely & Clevie did not invent or originate the habanera—one of the many names for the combination of the four-on-the-floor beat and 3+3+2 kick-snare combination,” Marshall wrote in his report, adding that the beat has existed for centuries in styles such as salsa, jazz, calypso, and revival church music.
Responding to Plantiff’s previous claim (and Clevie’s interview with WMV), where he claimed to have included hidden “ghost notes” in the original riddim, Dr. Marshall argues that such additions provide no new originality. “Steely & Clevie did not invent the “surf-rock” or “girl-group” beat either, which is what results when the supposed “ghost notes” (softer snare hits preceding the harder snare hits in the habanera rhythm) are added to the commonplace four-on-the floor kick-snare combination use of ghost notes, hi-hats, toms, and synth bass simply double the existing, unoriginal rhythm,” he said, “and do not contribute original compositional elements.”
Marshall also dismisses the tambourine and timbales components as either improvised or indistinguishable from generic gospel and rock rhythms. He criticizes opposing expert Dr. Kenneth Bilby for promoting a narrow, Jamaica-centric origin story and for confusing performance and recording elements—such as pitch, timbre, and feel—with protectable compositional features.
In conclusion, Marshall argues that denying artists around the world the right to use these basic rhythmic elements would misrepresent the collaborative nature of music history and unjustly restrict creative expression.
This filing marks a critical juncture in a case that could reshape how courts view rhythm, sampling, and genre evolution. The plaintiffs, led by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the estates of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson and others, allege that their composition introduced a unique drum pattern now copied in thousands of reggaeton and Latin pop tracks.
At the center of the legal battle is the “dembow riddim,” a beat made popular by Shabba Ranks’ “Dem Bow” song, now synonymous with 1800 global hits by Daddy Yankee, Bad Bunny, Drake, Justin Bieber J Balvin, and more. While plaintiffs claim its key elements—such as the four-on-the-floor kick and ghost snare hits—are original and copyrightable, the defense maintains these are foundational musical tools used freely for generations.
The court will hear the motion on September 26, 2025, a date that could become a turning point for how rhythmic patterns are protected—or not—under U.S. copyright law.
