The fact that a B-side is at the center of one of the largest legal disputes in contemporary music history is almost poetic. A B-side recorded in Jamaica in 1989 by a production team called Steely & Clevie, it was neither a chart-topper nor a headline release. Over 150 artists, including Bad Bunny, Karol G, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Justin Bieber, Luis Fonsi, and Pitbull, are being sued in a massive federal lawsuit over that song, “Fish Market.” About 18,000 recordings are involved in the case, and the potential damages could actually change an entire genre.
On Thursday, July 2, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. declined to settle the matter himself. After reviewing competing expert testimony from both sides, he concluded that the question of whether “Fish Market” is the original, copyright-protected source of the dembow rhythm is simply too contested to resolve through summary judgment. A jury will have to decide. Although both sides are portraying it that way, it’s the kind of decision that doesn’t feel like a victory for anyone.
The dembow rhythm — that insistent boom-ch-boom-chick percussion pattern woven into almost every reggaeton track you’ve ever heard — is the core dispute here. Steely & Clevie argue they created something genuinely original in “Fish Market,” a distinctive combination of kick, snare, hi-hat, and tom elements that became the structural backbone of an entire genre. Their attorneys confidently point out that no previous recording of that precise combination has turned up. Defendants’ lawyers push back hard, arguing the rhythm traces back to much older musical traditions — including the habanera, a genre with roots stretching centuries before reggaeton existed.
The Bad Bunny–Karol G dembow lawsuit has also exposed a complicated paper trail. Shabba Ranks, a dancehall artist whose 1990 hit song “Dem Bow” gave the rhythm its name, was the original license holder for “Fish Market.” After that, it underwent a number of iterations and samples before, according to the plaintiffs, it mathematically found its way into thousands of reggaeton songs. At a previous hearing, Bad Bunny’s defense lawyer Ken Freundlich stated bluntly, “We have thousands of songs in this case and we still don’t know what we’re comparing them to.” That is a serious grievance. It highlights a real structural issue with the case that a jury will now need to resolve.
Judge Birotte’s own words in the decision explain why it is so difficult to reach a clear decision in this case. He pointed out that there is no clear weakness on either side because the expert testimony on both sides is reliable, factual, and directly contradictory. The disagreements center on what constitutes originality, how musical elements work, and whether certain patterns are typical or unique. According to the judge, these are “classic disputes of fact, not law.” This case is now moving in that direction, though it’s still unclear how a jury of non-musicians will handle that type of testimony.
Even though the potential damages of hundreds of millions of dollars are not insignificant, there are other factors that make the Bad Bunny and Karol G. Dembow lawsuit truly noteworthy. It’s the question underneath the question: can you copyright a groove? Can someone legally claim ownership of a rhythm pattern, which is by definition intended to be repeated, borrowed, and evolved? Since at least the 2015 “Blurred Lines” ruling, the music industry has struggled with this. This case feels larger in scope, messier in history, and harder to resolve neatly.
The case now moves into a second discovery phase focused on whether the accused artists actually had access to “Fish Market” and copied it. That phase alone will take considerable time. If a trial takes place, it is still a long way off. There’s always the possibility of a settlement — with this many major labels and artists involved, the incentive to avoid a damaging jury verdict is real. For now, though, the courtroom waits while the beat continues.
