![\"Entertainment](\"https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Bad-Bunny-Reggae-Suit-1024x546.jpg\" "\\"Entertainment\\"")
<\/p>\n
Bad Bunny performing live. Photo Credit: Comecoquito<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Entertainment Half a decade ago, a trio of copyright suits accused all manner of artists and companies of infringing on reggaeton releases including \u201cFish Market.\u201d Now, having come up short in their summary judgment push, Bad Bunny and Rimas Entertainment are asking the court to reconsider its decision or allow them to kick off an appeal. <\/strong><\/h2>\nBad Bunny and Rimas made their request official in a motion for reconsideration, which different defendants, among them a number of Pryor Cashman-repped professionals as well as the separately represented DJ Snake and Empire Distribution, subsequently endorsed.<\/p>\n
As many already know \u2013 and as others have surmised in light of the defendants\u2019 multiple legal teams \u2013 there\u2019s quite a lot happening in the case, which technically consists of three consolidated actions.<\/p>\n
Just in passing, those fending off the long-running complaint include but definitely aren\u2019t limited to Drake, Concord, Sony Music, Justin Bieber, Daddy Yankee, Diplo, Anuel AA, Anitta, and Cinq<\/a>.<\/p>\nIn brief, the reggae-pioneer plaintiffs, and specifically Cleveland Constantine Browne and Wycliffe Johnson as Steely & Clevie, wrote and recorded a track entitled \u201cFish Market\u201d in 1989. <\/strong><\/h4>\nThe \u201cgroundbreaking\u201d instrumental work and a follow-up \u201chit\u201d (including vocals this time around) entitled \u201cDem Bow\u201d then set the stage for a derivative release, \u201cPounder Riddim,\u201d that pulled from both of the older efforts. From there, \u201cPounder Riddim\u201d powered additional derivative creations yet.<\/p>\n
Overall, \u201cPounder\u201d is said to have achieved largescale success \u2013 and seen its \u201cdistinctive\u201d elements sampled far and wide without authorization, hence the complaint.<\/p>\n
How far and wide are we talking about? Well, in keeping with the lengthy defendants list, the plaintiffs are pointing to over 1,000 allegedly infringing songs. These defendants have rather unsurprisingly been pushing back against the suit from the outset; previously, they were successful in dismissing (later-repleaded) contributory and vicarious infringement claims.<\/p>\n
But as mentioned, their summary judgment motion failed to bring about the desired result \u2013 though the presiding judge also rejected a distinct summary judgment motion from the plaintiffs.<\/h4>\n
\u201cGiven the Court\u2019s [expert-testimony] rulings above,\u201d Judge Andr\u00e9 Birotte Jr. determined at July\u2019s start, \u201cthe Court concludes that the record presents genuine disputes of material fact regarding the identification, characterization, and protectability of the Fish Market Elements, precluding summary judgment in either side\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese disputes go directly to the core questions of originality and protectability that define this phase of the case. Critically, they are driven almost entirely by competing expert analyses,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
Evidently, the summary judgment rejection isn\u2019t sitting right with Team Bad Bunny and different defendants. Attorneys for the \u201cDtMF\u201d artist and Rimas, repped here by Freundlich Law, asked the court<\/a> to reconsider or certify \u201cthe issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit.\u201d<\/p>\nThe way they see the situation, questions about the copyright protectability of the relevant musical elements aside, the court didn\u2019t directly consider \u201cwhether a single work even exists that contains all of the so called \u2018Fish Market Elements\u2019 claimed by Plaintiffs to constitute their selection and arrangement.\u201d<\/h4>\n
\u201cThe defense extensively briefed, argued, and pressed that question,\u201d the Bad Bunny defendants continued, \u201cand the undisputed record conclusively establishes that Plaintiffs are asserting exclusive rights in a \u2018Frankenstein\u2019 combination pieced together from three different works (including one work, \u2018Pounder,\u2019 that is solely a sound recording copyright), none of which contains all of the required seven \u2018Fish Market Elements.\u2019<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\nThis all-important question, they added for good measure, must be answered by concrete copyright-registration facts as opposed to \u201ca contest between musicologists.\u201d<\/h4>\n
Driving the point home, Bad Bunny\u2019s attorneys emphasized their belief that the \u201csupposedly original selection and arrangement\u201d at the case\u2019s core \u201cnowhere exists\u201d in the allegedly infringed works.<\/p>\n
\u201cSimply put, the two-bar chart at Paragraph 188 of the SCAC<\/em><\/strong> [Second Consolidated Amended Complaint<\/a>] that Plaintiffs hold out as a transcription of their supposedly original selection and arrangement nowhere exists in any of Plaintiffs\u2019 Claimed Works<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d they stated.<\/p>\nWith that, all eyes are on the court\u2019s reconsideration decision and the possible summary judgment appeal. Wherever the cards ultimately fall, as demonstrated by a smaller-scale courtroom confrontation<\/a> also involving Bad Bunny, it\u2019s safe to say that the litigants are racking up sizable legal bills.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\n
In brief, the reggae-pioneer plaintiffs, and specifically Cleveland Constantine Browne and Wycliffe Johnson as Steely & Clevie, wrote and recorded a track entitled \u201cFish Market\u201d in 1989. <\/strong><\/h4>\nThe \u201cgroundbreaking\u201d instrumental work and a follow-up \u201chit\u201d (including vocals this time around) entitled \u201cDem Bow\u201d then set the stage for a derivative release, \u201cPounder Riddim,\u201d that pulled from both of the older efforts. From there, \u201cPounder Riddim\u201d powered additional derivative creations yet.<\/p>\n
Overall, \u201cPounder\u201d is said to have achieved largescale success \u2013 and seen its \u201cdistinctive\u201d elements sampled far and wide without authorization, hence the complaint.<\/p>\n
How far and wide are we talking about? Well, in keeping with the lengthy defendants list, the plaintiffs are pointing to over 1,000 allegedly infringing songs. These defendants have rather unsurprisingly been pushing back against the suit from the outset; previously, they were successful in dismissing (later-repleaded) contributory and vicarious infringement claims.<\/p>\n
But as mentioned, their summary judgment motion failed to bring about the desired result \u2013 though the presiding judge also rejected a distinct summary judgment motion from the plaintiffs.<\/h4>\n
\u201cGiven the Court\u2019s [expert-testimony] rulings above,\u201d Judge Andr\u00e9 Birotte Jr. determined at July\u2019s start, \u201cthe Court concludes that the record presents genuine disputes of material fact regarding the identification, characterization, and protectability of the Fish Market Elements, precluding summary judgment in either side\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese disputes go directly to the core questions of originality and protectability that define this phase of the case. Critically, they are driven almost entirely by competing expert analyses,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
Evidently, the summary judgment rejection isn\u2019t sitting right with Team Bad Bunny and different defendants. Attorneys for the \u201cDtMF\u201d artist and Rimas, repped here by Freundlich Law, asked the court<\/a> to reconsider or certify \u201cthe issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit.\u201d<\/p>\nThe way they see the situation, questions about the copyright protectability of the relevant musical elements aside, the court didn\u2019t directly consider \u201cwhether a single work even exists that contains all of the so called \u2018Fish Market Elements\u2019 claimed by Plaintiffs to constitute their selection and arrangement.\u201d<\/h4>\n
\u201cThe defense extensively briefed, argued, and pressed that question,\u201d the Bad Bunny defendants continued, \u201cand the undisputed record conclusively establishes that Plaintiffs are asserting exclusive rights in a \u2018Frankenstein\u2019 combination pieced together from three different works (including one work, \u2018Pounder,\u2019 that is solely a sound recording copyright), none of which contains all of the required seven \u2018Fish Market Elements.\u2019<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\nThis all-important question, they added for good measure, must be answered by concrete copyright-registration facts as opposed to \u201ca contest between musicologists.\u201d<\/h4>\n
Driving the point home, Bad Bunny\u2019s attorneys emphasized their belief that the \u201csupposedly original selection and arrangement\u201d at the case\u2019s core \u201cnowhere exists\u201d in the allegedly infringed works.<\/p>\n
\u201cSimply put, the two-bar chart at Paragraph 188 of the SCAC<\/em><\/strong> [Second Consolidated Amended Complaint<\/a>] that Plaintiffs hold out as a transcription of their supposedly original selection and arrangement nowhere exists in any of Plaintiffs\u2019 Claimed Works<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d they stated.<\/p>\nWith that, all eyes are on the court\u2019s reconsideration decision and the possible summary judgment appeal. Wherever the cards ultimately fall, as demonstrated by a smaller-scale courtroom confrontation<\/a> also involving Bad Bunny, it\u2019s safe to say that the litigants are racking up sizable legal bills.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\n
The way they see the situation, questions about the copyright protectability of the relevant musical elements aside, the court didn\u2019t directly consider \u201cwhether a single work even exists that contains all of the so called \u2018Fish Market Elements\u2019 claimed by Plaintiffs to constitute their selection and arrangement.\u201d<\/h4>\n
\u201cThe defense extensively briefed, argued, and pressed that question,\u201d the Bad Bunny defendants continued, \u201cand the undisputed record conclusively establishes that Plaintiffs are asserting exclusive rights in a \u2018Frankenstein\u2019 combination pieced together from three different works (including one work, \u2018Pounder,\u2019 that is solely a sound recording copyright), none of which contains all of the required seven \u2018Fish Market Elements.\u2019<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n Driving the point home, Bad Bunny\u2019s attorneys emphasized their belief that the \u201csupposedly original selection and arrangement\u201d at the case\u2019s core \u201cnowhere exists\u201d in the allegedly infringed works.<\/p>\n \u201cSimply put, the two-bar chart at Paragraph 188 of the SCAC<\/em><\/strong> [Second Consolidated Amended Complaint<\/a>] that Plaintiffs hold out as a transcription of their supposedly original selection and arrangement nowhere exists in any of Plaintiffs\u2019 Claimed Works<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d they stated.<\/p>\n With that, all eyes are on the court\u2019s reconsideration decision and the possible summary judgment appeal. Wherever the cards ultimately fall, as demonstrated by a smaller-scale courtroom confrontation<\/a> also involving Bad Bunny, it\u2019s safe to say that the litigants are racking up sizable legal bills.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\nThis all-important question, they added for good measure, must be answered by concrete copyright-registration facts as opposed to \u201ca contest between musicologists.\u201d<\/h4>\n