Bad Bunny vs. the Supreme Court: The Viral Controversy Revisited

The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has ruled that a lawsuit filed by Carliz De La Cruz Hernández against artist Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, known as “Bad Bunny,” may proceed to trial. The court’s 50-page opinion determined that De La Cruz Hernández presented sufficient evidence to support claims regarding the unauthorized use of her voice for the “Bad Bunny, baby” audio tag. While the court dismissed claims related to older tracks due to the statute of limitations, it allowed litigation to continue regarding more recent commercial uses, including the album Un Verano Sin Ti.

Legal Stakes: Copyright and Right of Image

The controversy centers on whether a short vocal recording qualifies as an original, creative work protected by copyright law. According to the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Mildred Pabón Charneco, the court found that the demand for $40 million could not be discarded at this stage. The justices concluded that the specific interpretation of the phrase by De La Cruz Hernández could constitute a protected work, necessitating a full examination of evidence rather than a summary dismissal.

Beyond copyright, the court addressed the right to one’s own image. The ruling established that De La Cruz Hernández sufficiently alleged that her voice was used for commercial purposes without her consent. This allows her to pursue claims regarding the unauthorized use of her identity in the artist’s professional output, though the court did dismiss the case against manager Noah Kamil Assad Byrne, finding no basis for personal or vicarious liability.

Statute of Limitations and Judicial Dissent

The court applied a strict timeline to the claims. It determined that legal actions regarding the song “Pa Ti,” released in 2016, have expired because the statutory period for filing has passed. Consequently, that specific portion of the lawsuit is closed. However, newer uses of the audio tag—such as those found in the 2022 album Un Verano Sin Ti—remain within the legal window for litigation.

The decision was not unanimous. Chief Justice Maite Oronoz Rodríguez agreed that the right-of-image claims should proceed but dissented on the copyright issue, stating that the short phrase lacks the necessary creativity to be protected under the moral rights statute. Furthermore, Associate Justice Ángel Colón Pérez issued a 25-page dissenting opinion. He argued that the entire case should have been dismissed, characterizing the use of the voice as “merely accessory” to the main performance and a standard artistic expression in the reggaeton genre.

Future Implications for Artist Collaborations

The outcome of this case at the San Juan Court of First Instance could set a significant precedent for how artists handle informal collaborations. Currently, Rimas Entertainment, the label representing Bad Bunny, has not provided official comments on the ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Why did the Supreme Court allow the case to continue?
  
  The court determined that the plaintiff provided enough evidence to merit a trial, specifically regarding potential violations of moral rights and the unauthorized commercial use of her voice.
• What parts of the lawsuit were dismissed?
  
  The court dismissed claims against manager Noah Kamil Assad Byrne and any claims related to the 2016 song “Pa Ti,” citing the statute of limitations.
• What is the core of the dispute?
  
  De La Cruz Hernández claims her voice was used without consent in the “Bad Bunny, baby” audio tag, while the defense argues the tag is an accessory to the music and not a protected creative work.

Have thoughts on the intersection of personal relationships and intellectual property rights in the music industry? Join the conversation by sharing your perspective in the comments below or subscribe to our legal updates newsletter for further developments on this case.