The sweeping copyright case filed by Dancehall pioneers Steely and Clevie, along with others, alleging that 1,800 reggaeton hit songs illegally copied from their 1989 track “Fish Market” can move forward.
According to court documents obtained by WMV, Judge André Birotte Jr. who has asked whats the end game, ruled on five motions to dismiss in the ongoing copyright infringement case brought by Steely & Clevie Productions Ltd., Cleveland Constantine Brown p/k/a Clevie, and others against over 100 defendants, including artists, labels, and publishing companies.
Lawyers representing Steely and Clevie, Doniger/Burroughs send a statement to WMV saying: “Instead of working to resolve the dispute, the defendants filed a slew of motions in an effort to delay and increase the cost of the case, and to deprive our clients of their day in court. This tactic proved unsuccessful and we look forward to the litigation’s next phase.”
This 1989 dancehall Riddim produced by the duo is credited with spawning the iconic “Dem Bow” riddim. The ruling was issued on May 28, 2024, by the California Central District Court.
The plaintiffs allege both direct and secondary copyright infringement involving several musical works, including the “Fish Market” composition and sound recording, the “Dem Bow” composition, and the “Pounder Dub Mix II” sound recording.
Defendants, which include prominent artists such as Pitbull, Bad Bunny, Karol G, Wisin, and more, filed five motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), challenging the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The court’s analysis focused on whether the complaint provided enough factual detail to give the defendants fair notice of the claims and if the allegations were plausible. Ultimately, the motions to dismiss were denied for the direct copyright infringement claim, allowing the case to proceed.
Court’s Decision:
The Court allowed the Motion for Joinder (Dkt. Nos. 332, 333, 336, 337, 341, 362, 370): which is is a request to join additional parties or claims into an existing lawsuit. It may involve adding new plaintiffs, defendants, or additional claims that are related to the same legal issue. This motion was granted, meaning the court allowed the additional parties or claims to be included in the case.
However the court dismissed the motions filed under A Rule 12(b)(2) which is the request to dismiss the case on the grounds that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant(s). Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to make decisions affecting the parties involved. These motions were denied, indicating the court determined it does have the authority to hear the case involving these defendants.
The court also dismissed the motion that Steely and Clevie’s allegations of infrintgment, even if true, do not constitute a legal basis for the lawsuit. The court denied the motions for Claim One (direct copyright infringement) but granted them for Claim Two (vicarious and/or contributory copyright infringement) with leave to amend. This means the plaintiffs need to provide more specific details or evidence for the secondary infringement claims.
The Motion for More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 332) which is a request that the plaintiffs clarify vague or ambiguous allegations in the complaint so the defendant can adequately respond was denied by the court. Meaning it found the complaint sufficiently clear for the defendants to respond to.
The hearing took place on October 20, 2023, and the matter was taken under submission. A notice of new case law was filed by the plaintiffs on November 3, 2023
Now, Steely and Clevie’s Estate are given 30 days from the issuance of this order to file a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. If they choose to assert claims for contributory and vicarious infringement, these must be separated into distinct causes of action.
All the Plaintiffs in the case now include Cleveland Constantine Brown p/k/a Clevie, Steely & Clevie Productions Ltd, Ephraim Barrett p/k/a Count Shelly and representatives of Wycliffe Anthony Johnson p/k/a Steely (deceased).
The court’s decision allows the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to address deficiencies noted by the judge. This ruling underscores the importance of presenting detailed and plausible claims in copyright infringement lawsuits. The next steps involve the plaintiffs refining their allegations to meet the legal standards required to proceed with their case.
Daddy Yankee who has since converted to christianity, Karol G, Justin Bieber, Drake, Luis Fonsi, Pitbull, among others, are listed defendants in the lawsuit.
Legal representatives for many of these artists attempted to dismiss the case. Pitbull and Bad Bunny’s team argued for dismissal by asserting that the musical elements presented in Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit were “unprotectable.” Similarly, Karol G and Daddy Yankee’s team and the involved record labels Universal Music, Sony Music and Warner Music Group along with the publishing companies sought to halt the case by claiming it was overly broad to be considered a fair lawsuit.
