Universal Music Group (UMG) is fighting back against Salt-N-Pepa’s attempt to regain control of their master recordings. The major label filed a motion to dismiss the hip-hop duo’s lawsuit on July 17, 2025. UMG argues that Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton cannot exercise termination rights under copyright law.
The legal battle centers on Salt-N-Pepa’s classic albums from the 1980s and 1990s. These include “Hot, Cool & Vicious,” “A Salt With A Deadly Pepa,” “Blacks’ Magic,” and “Very Necessary.” The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between artists and record labels over ownership of musical catalogs.
UMG Claims Salt-N-Pepa Never Signed Original Record Deal
Universal Music Group’s lawyers present a technical argument about who actually signed the 1986 distribution agreement. They claim Salt-N-Pepa’s producer, Hurby “Luv Bug” Azor, was the one who signed the deal with Next Plateau Records. Next Plateau Records later became part of UMG’s massive catalog of owned music.
The label argues that James and Denton were not parties to the original contract that transferred their rights. “There was never an intention to effectuate a copyright transfer from plaintiffs,” UMG’s motion states. This technical distinction forms the foundation of their legal defense against Salt-N-Pepa’s claims.
Termination Rights Allow Artists to Reclaim Masters After 35 Years
Copyright law provides artists with termination rights that allow them to regain control of their work. These rights become available 35 years after an artist signs away their master recordings to a label. The law was designed to help artists benefit from the long-term value of their creative work.
Salt-N-Pepa filed their lawsuit in May 2025, claiming UMG refuses to honor these termination rights. The duo argues they should be able to reclaim ownership of their classic recordings. However, UMG contends that termination rights only apply when artists themselves execute the original record deals.
Federal Judge Previously Ruled Against Similar Claims
UMG points to a landmark class action lawsuit that addressed termination rights for hundreds of artists. A federal judge in that case determined that termination rights only apply to record deals executed directly by artists. The ruling established an important precedent for similar disputes between artists and record labels.
Interestingly, Salt-N-Pepa’s lawyers worked on that same class action lawsuit against UMG. The label notes that the attorneys have “apparently chosen to ignore that decision” in their current case. This prior ruling strengthens UMG’s position in the current legal battle.
Remixes and Derivative Works Complicate Legal Claims
UMG argues that termination rights don’t apply to derivative works, including remixes of original songs. Several recordings cited in Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit are remixes of their biggest hits. These include different versions of “Push It” and “Expression,” two of their most recognizable tracks.
The label claims ownership of these remixed versions would remain with UMG regardless of termination rights. “UMG’s ownership interest in the derivative ‘remixed’ sound recordings would not be subject to termination,” their lawyers write. This argument could significantly limit what Salt-N-Pepa could potentially reclaim.
Salt-N-Pepa’s Legal Team Remains Confident in Their Case
Salt-N-Pepa’s spokesperson responded to UMG’s dismissal motion with determination and confidence. “The Copyright Act was designed to give artists the chance to reclaim ownership of their work, which is precisely what Salt-N-Pepa have been attempting to do,” the statement reads. The duo maintains that UMG continues to resist their legitimate rights.
The spokesperson characterized UMG’s response as predictable and evasive. “UMG’s response is just what we expected — an effort to avoid addressing the core issues facing Salt-N-Pepa and so many other artists in these circumstances,” they added. The statement suggests this battle affects many artists beyond just Salt-N-Pepa.
Legal Battle Could Set Important Precedent for Hip-Hop Artists
This lawsuit represents broader issues facing hip-hop artists from the genre’s early commercial era. Many pioneering rappers signed deals in the 1980s and 1990s without fully understanding the long-term implications. The complex web of producers, labels, and distribution deals creates ongoing legal challenges.
Salt-N-Pepa’s case could influence how termination rights apply to hip-hop catalogs going forward. The outcome might affect other artists from that era who want to reclaim their masters. The legal precedent could reshape relationships between veteran hip-hop artists and major record labels.
UMG Seeks to Avoid Expensive Discovery Process
Universal Music Group wants the entire lawsuit dismissed before the discovery process begins. The label argues that gathering evidence would be time-consuming and expensive for both parties. They note that the relevant events trace back nearly four decades of contractual arrangements.
UMG’s strategy aims to avoid the costs associated with extensive legal discovery. The label prefers to have a judge rule on their motion to dismiss first. This approach could save significant time and money if successful in court.
Hip-Hop Pioneers Fight for Financial Recognition
Salt-N-Pepa’s battle reflects broader struggles faced by hip-hop’s founding generation. Many early rap artists signed unfavorable deals before the genre’s massive commercial success became apparent. These artists often lack the financial benefits that later generations of hip-hop stars have enjoyed.
The duo’s legal fight represents an attempt to gain fair compensation for their contributions to hip-hop culture. Their spokesperson emphasized that they “remain confident that the facts and the law are on our side.” This confidence suggests they plan to continue fighting regardless of UMG’s dismissal motion.
