Time Is Up: Steely & Clevie Sue Reggaetón Over Dem Bow Riddim Infringement

For over three decades, the rhythmic heartbeat of reggaetón—the dem bow riddim—has been the pulse behind every club banger and summer anthem. But in 2023, the estate of Jamaican production duo Steely & Clevie took legal action, filing a landmark lawsuit in California federal court against high-profile artists and labels. They allege that this foundational rhythm, first produced in 1989 on their track “Fish Market,” was used without permission in over 1,800 reggaetón songs, from Gasolina to Despacito, and even Justin Bieber’s feature, with no royalties paid.

In Jamaica’s vibrant dancehall era, instrumental tracks—or riddims—served as universal canvases for vocalists. Steely & Clevie’s “Fish Market” became the genesis of the dem bow pattern, later popularized by Shabba Ranks in “Dem Bow”(1990) The Guardian+1Musicologize+1. As reggaetón took root in Puerto Rico, this syncopated rhythm formed its bedrock—heard in global hits like Gasolina and Despacito The Guardian.

Their lawsuit charges that none of the major reggaetón acts sought a license or credit, resulting in vast profits at the expense of the original creators The Guardian.

Whether a rhythm can be copyrighted has no clear precedent in U.S. law. However, a judge denied early motions to dismiss—ruling that “Fish Market” could contain protectable originality and evidence of access due to its widespread circulation The Guardian+2Musicologize+2World Music Views+2.

Still, some musicologists express skepticism. Brian McBrearty, a forensic musicologist, called the case “a pip” and noted the riddim’s simplicity. He argued that the case “incentivizes future poorly premised complaints” and described the rhythm as “compositionally brief, basic, and ordinary”.

Beyond legal arguments, the lawsuit spotlights deeper concerns around erasure and racial inequity. Wayne Marshall, an ethnomusicologist at Berklee College of Music, observed:

“The underground scene in San Juan … was inspired by Jamaica’s sound system tradition of using popular instrumentals to propel new, live, local performances,” The Guardian+1Facebook+1

He added:

“Once reggaeton becomes one of the most popular genres in the world … it calls into question whether the same creative licence should apply to commodities worth millions of dollars” The Guardian.

Katelina “Gata” Eccleston, reggaetón historian and creator of Perreo 101, concurs:

“This has been a long time coming … It doesn’t take a scientist to see how [Fish Market] has been used and sampled and swapped around in reggaeton.” The Guardian

Her words underscore how Black Caribbean originators frequently go uncredited as their sounds fuel blockbuster hits.

The case now enters discovery, with juries to determine key questions: Can a supportive beat like dem bow be copyrighted? Did reggaetón artists infringe? And is there a moral imperative for restitution?

The consequences are massive. If the plaintiffs prevail, labels might need to license dem bow for future releases—shaking the foundation of modern beatmaking. If not, shared rhythmic heritage may remain in the public domain.

But whether you side with melody or mainspring, one thing is clear: this legal battle is about much more than sound. It’s a reckoning with lineage, labor, and who gets to write—and profit from—the soundtrack of global culture.

In the wake of Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit against reggaetón artists for allegedly copying their iconic “Fish Market” riddim, one question has echoed across the music industry: Can you copyright a rhythm?

In copyright law, particularly under the U.S. Copyright Act, protection is extended to “original works of authorship”that are fixed in a tangible medium. This includes music, but not all musical elements are treated equally.

• Melody, harmony, and lyrics are considered protectable expressions.
• Rhythms, grooves, and chord progressions are usually seen as ideas or building blocks, and ideas are notprotected.

That means a basic drum pattern or groove—no matter how famous—is generally not copyrightable on its own.

Steely & Clevie’s estate argues that their 1989 track “Fish Market” contains a specific, original expression of rhythm that goes beyond generic drum programming. Their legal argument hinges on three points:

1. Originality: The dem bow rhythm they created was novel, distinctive, and not previously heard in that form.
2. Fixation: It was recorded and released as a published track (“Fish Market” and “Dem Bow”).
3. Substantial Similarity & Access: Reggaetón artists had access to their recordings and copied elements without transformation.

In March 2023, a California judge agreed that the case could proceed—not because rhythms are inherently copyrightable, but because the combination of rhythm, timbre, and pattern may constitute a protectable expression (The Guardian).

 

Copyrighting a riddim—a repeating instrumental pattern or rhythm central to genres like dancehall and reggaetón—is notoriously difficult due to its foundational, often loop-based nature that courts may view as too generic or functional to qualify for full protection. However, in this case, the similarities are so substantial that it’s likely a court will recognize a degree of infringement. As a result, labels and artists involved will probably be compelled to settle, either through direct payment, licensing agreements, or backend royalties. One way or another, this lawsuit is poised to change Latin music forever, forcing the industry to reckon with its long history of uncredited borrowing from Caribbean creators and setting a new precedent for how rhythm, culture, and authorship are legally valued.