Salt-N-Pepa’s Music Ownership Appeal Has a ‘Foundational Deficiency,’ UMG Argues

Universal Music Group (UMG) is continuing to fight Salt-N-Pepa’s attempt to claw back ownership of the duo’s master recordings, arguing in a new appellate filing that copyright law’s termination right is not absolute.

The world’s largest music company submitted a brief on Tuesday (May 5) urging the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reject the challenge lodged by Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton. The rappers sued UMG last year for refusing to revert their iconic late ’80s and early ’90s catalog under the so-called “termination right,” a tenet of the U.S. Copyright Act that allows artists to reclaim ownership of intellectual property decades after signing it away.

A New York federal judge threw out the lawsuit in January, determining that Salt-N-Pepa had no termination rights because they did not actually sign their 1986 record deal. Rather, the contract was between Next Plateau Records, which has since been absorbed by UMG, and the rappers’ producer, Hurby “Luv Bug” Azor.

Salt-N-Pepa have argued on appeal, with support from Irving Azoff’s Music Artists Coalition, that this ruling goes against Congress’ intent in crafting the termination right — that is, to give power back to creators who often lack leverage in early-career negotiations. But in Tuesday’s response, UMG said Salt-N-Pepa cannot explain away the “foundational deficiency” of the duo’s lawsuit with a “single-minded focus on the termination provision’s general intent to benefit authors.”

“While plaintiffs and their amici emphasize the congressional policy to give authors a second chance to capture the value of their creative works through a termination right, they ignore the extent to which the entire termination provision is itself a carefully balanced scheme that also places important limitations on when and how the right may be exercised,” wrote UMG’s lawyers. “[The lower court] correctly found that the present case falls clearly outside the scope of any termination right created by Congress.”

According to UMG, one of these key limitations carved out by Congress was that artists cannot terminate a copyright transfer made by a third party like Azor. That’s exactly what the rappers tried to do here, UMG argued, adding that the New York judge in no way reinvented the wheel by shutting them down.  

“Plaintiffs also criticize the district court for purportedly creating a new standard,” wrote the company’s attorneys. “However, properly understood in the context of the entire opinion, the district court’s analysis of the 1986 agreements reflects nothing more than the modest and obviously necessary requirement that a grant of copyright be made by the actual owner of the rights.”

Salt-N-Pepa’s lawyer did not immediately return a request for comment on UMG’s brief. The rappers will get another chance to rebut these arguments in writing, after which a panel of Second Circuit judges will hear oral arguments before ultimately deciding whether to revive Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit.

The Salt-N-Pepa appeal is not the only ongoing legal case in which UMG is staunchly defending the limitations of termination rights. The company is also part of a broader coalition challenging a landmark recent court ruling that expanded termination rights beyond U.S. borders.

UMG, Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and BMG all came together last month to buy the disputed copyright in that case so they could bring it to the U.S. Supreme Court for reversal. They’ve now begun the process of asking the justices to weigh in, saying the underlying decision goes against decades of industry norms and has “upended” global music dealmaking.

Daily newsletters straight to your inbox

Sign Up