Steely & Clevies Dembow Copyright Case Heads to Jury After Judge Declines to Rule

In a lawsuit that could reshape the legal landscape for reggaeton, the estate of Jamaican production duo Steely & Clevie has moved a claim against more than 160 artists and record labels to a jury. The case centers on the 1989 rhythm track “Fish Market,” which the plaintiffs argue is the foundation of the dembow beat that underpins over 1,800 reggaeton songs.

The lawsuit was first filed in 2021 in the U.S. Central District of California. It was expanded in 2023 to include a broader list of defendants, including major stars such as Bad Bunny, who the suit alleges has used the rhythm in 77 of the disputed tracks. According to court documents obtained by World Music Views, the complaint claims that the “Fish Market” riddim was the basis for the dembow rhythm that later became a staple of reggaeton.

Steely & Clevie, a duo composed of Wycliffe Johnson and Cleveland Browne, produced “Fish Market” on their own Kingston‑based label in 1989. The track was not a commercial hit, but its beat has been widely adopted in Latin music. The plaintiffs argue that the rhythm is a distinct, protectable element and that its use without permission has generated millions of dollars for the defendants.

In May 2024, Judge André Birotte Jr. ruled that the court could not decide whether the rhythm is protectable under copyright law. The judge stated that the question of originality and ownership of the dembow beat is a matter for a jury to determine. The ruling effectively moved the case forward without a preliminary determination on the merits.

The decision was reported by Billboard and Dancehall Magazine, both of which noted that the judge’s refusal to rule on the core issue leaves the parties to present evidence at trial. The case is now scheduled for a jury trial, although the exact date has not yet been set.

If the plaintiffs succeed, the outcome could have far‑reaching implications. The dembow beat is used in a wide range of popular songs, from Latin pop to mainstream pop and hip‑hop. A ruling that the rhythm is copyrightable could trigger a wave of licensing requests and potentially alter how producers create new tracks.

Legal experts point out that, historically, beats and drum patterns have not been considered protectable under U.S. copyright law. The plaintiffs’ claim rests on the argument that the “Fish Market” rhythm is a unique, identifiable element that was copied in a substantial number of songs.

The lawsuit also names Universal Music Group and Warner Chappell Music as defendants, alleging that the two companies have distributed and promoted the disputed tracks. The plaintiffs seek damages for the use of the rhythm in the 1,800 songs they identify.

The case remains in the pre‑trial phase. The parties are expected to file additional motions and evidence in the coming months. The outcome of the jury trial will be closely watched by artists, producers, and music‑rights organizations.

At present, the only known next step is the jury trial, the date of which has not yet been announced. The case will likely continue to be monitored by industry publications and legal analysts.