Even if you didn’t grow up in the 80s and 90s, you’ve probably heard one of the timeless hits by the hip-hop trifecta Salt-N-Pepa. Hailing from Queens, New York, the group consists of Cheryl James ("Salt"), Sandra Denton ("Pepa"), and Deidra "DJ Spinderella" Roper.
As one of the first all-female rap groups to achieve mainstream success, they revolutionized the male-dominated hip-hop landscape with their feminist, sex-positive lyrics. Their catalog includes iconic hits like "Push It," "Let's Talk About Sex," "Shoop," and "Whatta Man.” They would go on to be the first female group to win a Lifetime Achievement Grammy and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Now, the eponymous two members of Salt-N-Pepa are in a legal battle with their former record label. Specifically, they want the master recordings of their earliest works, which Universal Music Group says it owns, not Salt-N-Pepa. Master recordings are the originals from which all copies are made.
The Record Labels
As big as Salt-N-Pepa are, record labels have had a lot of influence and power in the music industry. This was particularly true in the '80s and '90s, when artists were at a disadvantage when negotiating deals with record companies. One big player in the global music industry is the California-based Universal Music Group (UMG). UMG manages recorded music assets and operates various labels such as Island Records, Def Jam Recordings, and Geffen Records. It is a dominant force in music production, distribution, and rights management.
Salt-N-Pepa never actually signed on with UMG. Rather, their relationship with the company began through contractual agreements with predecessor companies like Next Plateau Records and London Records. Initially, James (Salt) and Denton (Pepa) signed agreements with Noise In the Attic Productions for their exclusive recording services. These agreements led to distribution contracts with Next Plateau Records for promoting Salt-N-Pepa's sound recordings. Over time, UMG acquired these predecessor entities through mergers and acquisitions. They became the successor-in-interest to Salt-N-Pepa's catalog.
Controlling Copyright Laws
The legal disputes are based in U.S. copyright law, specifically, the Copyright Act of 1976. The relevant portions of the Act for Salt-N-Pepa’s case are primarily found in Section 203, which addresses the termination of copyright transfers and licenses. This section provides authors (including recording artists) a "second chance" to regain control over their works.
Per Section 203, authors can terminate grants of copyright ownership 35 years after the initial grant, allowing them to reclaim rights to their works. This right is intended to counterbalance the unequal bargaining positions often faced by authors at the time of original agreements.
To exercise termination rights, authors must serve a Notice of Termination within a specific window—no earlier than two years and no later than ten years before the effective date of termination.
But there are some carve-outs. For one, termination rights do not apply to "works made for hire." Section 101 of the Act defined “works made for hire” as works created by an employee within the scope of employment or specially commissioned works falling into certain categories with explicit written agreements. Secondly, under Section 203(b)(1), derivative works created under the authority of the original grant can continue to be used even after termination. This is meant to ensure that new creations based on original works remain protected.
These provisions reflect Congress's intent to protect authors from long-term exploitation and allow them to benefit from their work's success once its true value becomes apparent post-publication. Salt-N-Pepa's lawsuit hinges on whether their sound recordings qualify for termination under these guidelines or if they fall under the"works made for hire" exclusion.
The Battle for Rights
In 2022, Salt and Pepa used Section 203 to attempt to reclaim their rights over their sound recordings by serving Notices of Termination on UMG. But the record label contested these termination notices by arguing that the sound recordings in question were classified as "works made for hire."
UMG's assertion hinged on contractual language and copyright registrations indicating that the sound recordings were authored and owned by Next Plateau Records and London Records as "employers for hire." They argued that since these entities were listed as authors under this designation at the time of registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, Salt’s and Pepa’s termination claims were invalid.
Salt and Pepa countered this argument by pointing out that key agreements related to their recordings did not contain explicit language designating them as "works made for hire." Specifically, they referenced agreements such as the 1986 NITA Production Agreement, which granted rights to Noise In the Attic Productions but did not classify the recordings under this exclusionary category. The duo maintained that these grants were terminable under Section 203
Temporary Truce
A year ago, UMG unilaterally decided to cease all U.S. exploitation of these sound recordings. This action effectively halted any commercial activity related to Salt-N-Pepa's music catalog covered by the agreement. UMG's decision to stop exploiting these works was perceived as a punitive measure against Salt-N-Pepa for asserting their statutory rights under Section 203. It resulted in significant financial implications for the duo, as they were deprived of expected royalty income and hindered from entering new agreements or exploiting their music independently following the termination dates specified in their notices.
A couple of months later, despite ongoing negotiations, the parties entered into a temporary exploitation agreement. The agreement allowed UMG to continue exploiting certain sound recordings from albums such as Hot, Cool & Vicious and A Salt With A Deadly Pepa while they attempted to resolve their differences. The exploitation agreement was intended to provide a framework for continued commercial use of these recordings without prejudice to either party's legal positions during the dispute resolution process. It included provisions for accounting and royalty obligations by UMG, ensuring that Salt and Pepa would receive compensation for the use of their works during this interim period.
A Question for the Courts
But Salt’s and Pepa’s core legal questions were still unresolved, so they asked a judge to settle the matter. On Monday, they filed a complaint in federal court, requesting a judicial determination affirming the validity of their Notices of Termination under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. They are hoping that a judge will rule that their termination rights for the sound recordings have vested or will vest on specified dates, and that UMG must promptly transfer all rights in these sound recordings back to Salt-N-Pepa.
The two are also seeking a permanent injunction preventing UMG and its affiliates from infringing on their rights under federal law in the copyrighted sound recordings. This includes prohibiting unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exploitation of the sound recordings.
Related Resources:
- Rhymes and Crimes: Fourth Circuit Uses Rap Lyrics as Evidence in Drug Trafficking Case
- Copyright Dogfight as "Top Gun: Maverick" Screenwriter Sues Paramount (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
- Copyright Law (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
