Universal Music Group (UMG) is firing back at Salt-N-Pepa’s attempt to win back control of their masters, saying the claims are legally invalid as the hip-hop duo was not actually a party to its 1986 record deal.
The argument comes in UMG’s Thursday (July 17) motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Salt-N-Pepa back in May. Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton claimed the major label is refusing to honor their so-called “termination rights,” a provision of copyright law that allows artists who sign over their master recordings to regain control of that intellectual property 35 years after a song’s release.
UMG’s lawyers argue that Salt-N-Pepa don’t have any termination rights because James and Denton were not the ones who signed away their masters for the 1980s and 1990s albums Hot, Cool & Vicious, A Salt With A Deadly Pepa, Blacks’ Magic, A Blitz of Salt-N-Pepa Hits and Very Necessary.
The music giant says Salt-N-Pepa’s 1986 distribution deal with Next Plateau Records — now a part of UMG — was actually signed by the duo’s producer, Hurby “Luv Bug” Azor.
“There was never an intention to effectuate a copyright transfer from plaintiffs. The only transfer is made by producer as the copyright owner to Next Plateau,” the motion reads. “Because that is not a grant subject to termination by plaintiffs, plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim as to the validity of their termination of purported grants concerning the sound recordings should be dismissed.”
The motion points out that in a landmark class action lawsuit brought against UMG over termination rights, a federal judge specifically determined that these rights only apply to record deals executed by artists. Salt-N-Pepa’s lawyers worked on the class action, notes UMG, but have “apparently chosen to ignore that decision.”
UMG also says termination rights don’t apply to derivative works, including remixes. Several of the recordings cited in Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuits are remixes, including versions of the hits “Push It” and “Expression.”
“Accordingly, even if plaintiffs had executed grants of copyright rights in the sound recordings that are the subject of the notice, and even assuming that the notice were otherwise valid, UMG’s ownership interest in the derivative ‘remixed’ sound recordings would not be subject to termination,” write UMG’s lawyers.
UMG wants the entire lawsuit tossed out and says it shouldn’t have to begin the discovery process until a judge rules on its motion. Gathering evidence for Salt-N-Pepa would be time-consuming and expensive, says the label, “because the relevant events trace back many decades, including various contractual arrangements dating back almost forty years.”
Reached for comment on the dismissal motion Thursday, a spokesperson for Salt-N-Pepa says, “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, and UMG continues to resist.”
“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,” adds the spokesperson. “But we remain confident that the facts and the law are on our side.”
This story was updated on July 17 at 9:58 p.m. ET to include a statement from Salt-N-Pepa’s reps.
