Federal Court Weighs Whether the “Dembow” Beat Can Be Owned
A high-stakes copyright dispute in Los Angeles is forcing a central question in modern music into the courtroom: can a foundational rhythm pattern—used across decades of dancehall and reggaeton—qualify as an original work protected by U.S. copyright law?
Dozens of reggaeton performers and music companies, including internationally recognized artists such as Bad Bunny and J Balvin, are pushing back against claims that they unlawfully copied the so-called “dembow” rhythm. The lawsuit traces the beat’s lineage to a 1989 Jamaican instrumental track, “Fish Market”, created by producers Cleveland Browne and the late Wycliffe Johnson, professionally known as Steeely & Clevie.
The Track at the Center: “Fish Market” and Its Afterlife
“Fish Market” began as a B-side recording, but its percussion arrangement later became influential well beyond its original release. According to the plaintiffs, the rhythm was subsequently licensed and popularized through a series of recordings that helped define dancehall and, later, reggaeton’s rhythmic backbone.
The plaintiffs point to this progression:
- 1989: Steeely & Clevie record “Fish Market”, featuring a distinctive drum-and-percussion pattern.
- 1990: Shabba Ranks uses the rhythm in the hit “Dem Bow”, giving rise to the term “dembow.”
- Later: “Dennis the Menace” Halliburton incorporates the pattern into his “Pounder Riddim” recordings.
- Disputed bridge: Plaintiffs allege a later version, “Pounder Dub Mix II,” became a source that was sampled or copied extensively by reggaeton artists.
What the Plaintiffs Say Is Original
Representing Browne and Johnson’s estate, attorney Stephen Doniger argued that while certain rhythmic ideas may be common, the protectable element here is the specific percussion arrangement in “Fish Market”—including a particular combination of kick, snare, hi-hat, and tom elements layered in a way the plaintiffs characterize as subtly but meaningfully distinct.
Doniger acknowledged that part of the underlying pulse resembles the well-known habanera rhythm—often described as a “boom-ch, boom-ch” kick-and-snare pattern—which, as a basic musical building block, is generally not copyrightable. However, he maintained that Steeely & Clevie added additional percussion components that transform the idea into an original, protectable expression.
How the Defendants Challenge the Claim
Attorneys for the accused reggaeton artists and labels contend that the lawsuit attempts to convert a widely used rhythmic style into private property. Their position is that the plaintiffs have not clearly identified a single, coherent protectable work that defendants supposedly copied.
Defense counsel Benjamin Akley argued that the plaintiffs’ theory depends on assembling a claimed rhythm from multiple recordings rather than pointing to one consistent, protectable composition. In his view, the contested later recordings do not reproduce the relevant portion of “Fish Market” as a whole; instead, they allegedly recreate aspects of the dembow feel through looping and editing.
Akley also argued that certain attributes emphasized by the plaintiffs—such as timbre and texture—are too abstract to receive copyright protection under Ninth Circuit precedent, which draws a line between protectable expression and unprotectable musical ideas or generalized sound characteristics.
A “Shapeshifting” Theory and a Comparison Problem
Ken Freundlich, representing Bad Bunny, criticized the plaintiffs’ approach as inconsistent, asserting that the claimed infringed work appears to shift depending on the argument. He argued that defendants cannot properly defend themselves if they do not know precisely what they are alleged to have copied.
With thousands of songs implicated, the defense has emphasized a practical and legal challenge: copyright infringement analysis typically requires a clear comparison between a protected work and an accused work. If the reference point is unclear—or constructed from multiple sources—defendants argue the case becomes unworkable.
The Judge’s Reluctance: Originality and Expert Battles
U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. did not immediately resolve the dispute at the hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment. He indicated reluctance to decide “as a matter of law” whether the “Fish Market” percussion arrangement is sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection, especially given the volume of competing expert reports.
The case, the judge suggested, may ultimately turn on dueling musicology testimony about whether the beat is:
- Original expression created by Steeely & Clevie, or
- A compilation of commonplace rhythmic elements that cannot be monopolized through copyright.
If the court denies summary judgment to both sides, the litigation could proceed to a jury trial unless the parties settle.
Why This Case Matters for Reggaeton, Dancehall, and Sampling Culture
The outcome could have ripple effects across genres that rely on shared rhythmic foundations. Reggaeton and dancehall have historically evolved through reinterpretation, riddims, and recurring patterns that artists build upon. A ruling that elevates a widely used rhythm arrangement into a broadly enforceable copyright could reshape how producers clear beats, construct drum patterns, and assess legal risk.
Conversely, if the court concludes that the dembow pattern at issue is too generic—or too difficult to define precisely—it may reinforce the principle that foundational rhythmic ideas remain part of the musical commons, even when they are culturally iconic.
What Happens Next
Judge Birotte indicated he aims to issue a decision on the summary judgment motions by the end of January. Until then, the case remains a closely watched test of how U.S. copyright law handles the boundary between influence, genre convention, and actionable copying—particularly when a beat becomes the backbone of a global sound.
Source: Reggaeton artists challenge originality of 'dembow' rhythm in copyright battle
