Universal Music Group filed its appellate brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday (May 5), urging the court to uphold the January dismissal of Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit seeking ownership of their master recordings. The filing argues that Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton cannot exercise copyright termination rights over recordings they never directly owned, describing the duo’s legal challenge as having a “foundational deficiency” that no appeal argument can cure.
The case turns on three contracts signed on May 15, 1986. Salt-N-Pepa entered a recording agreement with Noise In The Attic Productions, a company controlled by their producer Hurby “Luv Bug” Azor. That same day, Azor separately signed a distribution agreement with Next Plateau Records, which was later absorbed by UMG, and the duo signed an inducement letter addressed to Next Plateau. Under the recording agreement, Azor’s company held sole and exclusive ownership of the masters and their copyrights. Azor then transferred those rights directly to Next Plateau. Judge Denise Cote concluded in January that it was only Azor and his company that granted a transfer of rights in 1986 to Next Plateau Records, not Salt-N-Pepa themselves. Because Section 203 of the Copyright Act only allows artists to terminate transfers they themselves executed, UMG argues the termination right simply does not apply here. Salt-N-Pepa pointed to the inducement letter as evidence of a direct copyright grant, but UMG’s brief states the letter “does not contain or refer to any grant of copyright rights.”
Salt-N-Pepa have argued on appeal, with amicus support from Irving Azoff’s Music Artists Coalition, the Authors Alliance, and the National Society of Entertainment and Arts Lawyers, that the lower court’s ruling contradicts Congress’ stated intent in crafting the termination right: to give creators a second chance to capture the value of their work after early-career deals made at a disadvantage. UMG’s brief rejects that framing directly, arguing that the termination provision “is itself a carefully balanced scheme that also places important limitations on when and how the right may be exercised,” and that the court correctly found the Salt-N-Pepa case falls outside those limits. The duo will have an opportunity to file a reply brief before oral arguments are scheduled before a Second Circuit panel.
There is also a derivative works dimension that could matter even if Salt-N-Pepa wins on the primary termination question. A significant number of the recordings covered by their termination notice are remixes, including the version of “Push It” that UMG describes as a global phenomenon. Under federal copyright law, a derivative work prepared under an authorized grant can continue to be used even after termination, meaning Salt-N-Pepa could win the appeal and still not reclaim the most commercially valuable recording in their catalog. Their four early albums, Hot, Cool & Vicious, A Salt With a Deadly Pepa, Blacks’ Magic, and Very Necessary, remain unavailable on streaming platforms in the United States, a situation the duo publicly called out during their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction speech last November.
This case does not sit in isolation. UMG is simultaneously part of a label coalition that purchased the disputed copyright in a separate termination rights case for the sole purpose of bringing it before the Supreme Court, after a federal appeals court ruled earlier this year that songwriters can use US copyright law to reclaim their songs worldwide, not just domestically. That ruling, combined with the Salt-N-Pepa appeal, makes this one of the most active periods for copyright termination rights litigation in recent memory. Taken together, the two fronts represent the music industry’s most aggressive legal effort in years to define and limit the scope of termination rights across both domestic and international contexts.
