Dangerous Bunny’s former girlfriend might proceed with a lawsuit accusing the reggaeton star of utilizing a recording of her voice saying “Dangerous Bunny child” on his 2022 track “Dos Mil 16” with out her permission.
In an 80-page ruling obtained by Rolling Stone, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court docket discovered that Carliz De La Cruz Hernández can transfer ahead together with her declare that the recording’s use violated her proper to guard her identification from business exploitation. Dangerous Bunny, born Benito Martinez Ocasio, has been combating the lawsuit because it was first filed in 2023.
In her filings, De La Cruz Hernández says she started courting Dangerous Bunny in 2011 and recorded the phrase at his request in 2015. The couple later separated, reconciled in 2017, and broke up once more, although they continued speaking intermittently till 2019, she claims.
In accordance with De La Cruz Hernández, she by no means approved the recording’s use on “Pa Ti,” launched in 2015, or on “Dos Mil 16,” a observe from the chart-topping album Un Verano Sin Ti. She alleges Dangerous Bunny and his firm, Rimas Leisure, used her voice memo throughout streaming providers, social media, tv, radio, and promotional campaigns, turning it right into a advertising hook that fueled curiosity within the couple’s on-and-off relationship and drove gross sales. She alleges the defendants unfairly profited from her voice with out compensating her, and the Supreme Court docket discovered that she introduced adequate details to assist her declare of a believable business use.
Whereas De La Cruz Hernández can transfer ahead together with her declare associated to “Dos Mil 16,” the courtroom discovered she waited too lengthy to pursue damages for “Pa Ti.” The statute of limitations for the sooner track had run out, the courtroom dominated.
Trending Tales
In its opinion, the bulk additionally reversed an earlier dismissal of De La Cruz Hernández’s copyright declare. It discovered she had a proper to pursue her claims that the recording of her private and distinguishable voice efficiency could be protectible as a copyright.
Makes an attempt to achieve legal professionals on either side weren’t instantly profitable on Friday. A dissenting decide mentioned he would have dismissed each claims, discovering that neither was supported by regulation.
