Judge Denies Summary Judgment in Reggaeton Copyright Fight Over 'Fish Market'

Judge André Birotte Jr. denied summary judgment motions in the 'Fish Market' copyright dispute.

U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. recently denied motions for summary judgment filed by both plaintiffs and defendants in a complex copyright infringement case concerning the 1989 instrumental track "Fish Market" by Jamaican producers Steely & Clevie. The lawsuit alleges that "Fish Market" served as a foundational element in the emergence of reggaeton but was used by numerous artists without proper authorization or credit. The case involves over 160 defendants, including high-profile reggaeton artists like Bad Bunny and J Balvin, and producers, with plaintiffs asserting that as many as 3,600 reggaeton songs contain elements derived from "Fish Market."

Defendants contend that the percussion arrangement of "Fish Market" is not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection, a view supported by qualified experts who dispute the uniqueness of the track's musical composition. Plaintiffs likewise presented expert testimony claiming protectability of the composition. Judge Birotte noted that the presence of these conflicting expert opinions creates genuine disputes regarding the identification and characterization of the musical elements at issue, which precludes summary judgment for either party.

The "Fish Market" instrumental was initially recorded as a B-side to Gregory Peck’s “Poco Man Jam” and was subsequently licensed to Shabba Ranks for his 1990 hit “Dem Bow.” This recording helped establish the "dembow riddim," an essential rhythm underpinning much of reggaeton music. The legal battle underscores the challenges inherent in music copyright litigation, particularly in cases where foundational genre elements are contested. As attorney Ken Freundlich, representing Bad Bunny, highlighted, the difficulty lies in precisely defining what is being infringed: “We have thousands of songs in this case and we still don’t know what we’re comparing them to. That’s the cardinal sin of this case.”

The case's resolution will be closely watched, as it could influence how courts interpret originality and protectability in music that forms the backbone of entire genres. Until then, the denial of summary judgment preserves the dispute for further fact-finding and potentially a trial.

Yes, but: The conflicting expert analyses illustrate the subjective nature of determining musical originality, making clear-cut rulings difficult in such cases.

What's next: Next steps in the litigation are unclear, with the case likely proceeding to discovery or trial to resolve factual disputes.