Lawyers for Bad Bunny, Drake, and many of reggaeton’s biggest stars faced off against attorneys for reggae duo Steely & Clevie in a Los Angeles courtroom Friday, as a judge asked pointed questions and said he would need several weeks to decide whether to reconsider a major ruling he issued last month. In the July ruling, the judge found that a jury must decide whether an estimated 1,800 reggaeton songs by more than 100 artists infringed the composition copyright held by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson for the 1989 song “Fish Market.” The plaintiffs claim the song was the original source of reggaeton’s so-called dembow rhythm, the signature percussion pattern that helped define the genre. Bad Bunny’s lawyers filed the motion asking the judge to reconsider his ruling, and lawyers for the other artists later joined the request.
They argued Friday that the combination of musical elements that the judge found potentially protectable, referred to in the case as the “Fish Market Elements,” was actually a “pastiche” assembled from different portions of different songs. Kenneth Freundlich, the lead lawyer for Bad Bunny, pointed to sworn testimony in which Clevie Browne said the two-measure pattern identified as “Fish Market” in the complaint was actually made up of “two bars not connected in the song ‘Fish Market.’” Freundlich said Browne testified that the first bar came from the opening measure of “Fish Market,” while the second came from bar 22. Freundlich argued that two-bar timbale loop identified as protectable in the complaint appears only in the related song “Pounder (Dub Mix II),” which does not contain the tambourine element identified as protectable in “Fish Market.” He also noted that Steely & Clevie do not own the composition copyright for “Pounder,” only the copyright to its sound recording. (Jamaican producer Dennis “the Menace” Halliburton owns the composition copyright and is not a party to the lawsuit.) “It’s our position that a selection arrangement can’t be based on a pastiche of compositions.
We have to have a single work,” Frendlich argued. District Judge André Birotte Jr. opened the hearing on Friday by noting that he was being asked to “mull this nightmare over some more.” He then turned to lawyers for Steely & Clevie with the pointed question at the center of the dispute. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Benjamin Tookey answered that a “consecutive two-bar timbale pattern” exists in one place in the composition for “Fish Market,” and that it was repeated “at different times in ‘Fish Market.’” When it was his turn to speak, Freundlich reacted sharply.
In his motion for reconsideration, Freundlich said Steely & Clevie “assembled a Frankenstein” from the separate songs. That’s what this case is.” Related Content Romeo Santos Sues Accounting Firm for $2.3 Million Over Alleged Tax Errors, Mismanagement Lil Durk Murder-for-Hire Trial: Judge Rules ‘Pissed Me Off’ Video Can Be Used as Evidence Michael Jackson Estate Wins Round as Judge Orders Arbitration in Cascio Siblings Trafficking Case Sailors Are Reportedly Trying to Go Overboard to Escape Squalid Conditions on Aircraft Carrier Doniger said “this Frankenstein theory is a great soundbite,” but it’s “inaccurate” because “the only reason we talk about ‘Pounder,’” is because it contains much of the same selection and arrangement as “Fish Market.” As the hour-long hearing in downtown Los Angeles concluded, Judge Birotte took the matter under submission. Freundlich argued Friday that taking the case to trial would otherwise be “a complete mess,” with discovery and preparation involving roughly 1,800 songs by scores of famous artists including Karol G, Anitta, Pitbull, Justin Bieber, and Daddy Yankee, potentially “taking us into 2035.” Bad Bunny, meanwhile, has denied allegations he infringed on Steely & Clevie’s work on dozens of songs including “Tití Me Preguntó,” “Un Ratito,” and “Una Vez.” Whatever the judge ultimately decides, the case will continue on copyright claims involving allegedly unauthorized samples of sound recordings owned by the plaintiffs.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
