Salt-N-Pepa Ask Second Circuit to Revive Copyright Case Against UMG
Salt-N-Pepa asked the Second Circuit in early 2024 to restore their copyright lawsuit against UMG.
Why it matters: The case tests how courts interpret termination rights under Section 203 of the Copyright Act when works are labeled as made for hire. Its outcome may affect artists' ability to reclaim copyrights from major labels.
- Salt-N-Pepa sued UMG in June 2023 to regain copyrights on four early albums.
- A federal judge dismissed the case in March 2024, ruling albums were 'works made for hire.'
- Their appeal argues Section 203 allows copyright termination after 35 years, despite made-for-hire claims.
- The albums at issue span from 1986's 'Hot, Cool & Vicious' to 1993's 'Very Necessary.'
The rap group Salt-N-Pepa filed suit in June 2023 in the Southern District of New York seeking to recover copyrights for their first four albums: 'Hot, Cool & Vicious' (1986), 'A Salt with a Deadly Pepa' (1988), 'Blacks' Magic' (1990), and 'Very Necessary' (1993). They alleged that under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, which permits authors to terminate copyright transfers 35 years after assignment, they had valid termination rights.
In March 2024, a federal judge dismissed their suit, ruling these albums were "works made for hire." This legal term means the label, Universal Music Group (UMG), is the original copyright owner, potentially barring termination. The court sided with UMG's argument that the music was created under employment-like arrangements, shielding the label from artists' claims.
Salt-N-Pepa's legal team contends this interpretation conflicts with Congress's aim to empower creators. Attorney Doug Davis criticized courts' frequent siding with large companies, saying, "Congress intended to balance power for creators, but courts too often favor big companies over artists."[Courthouse News]
Sandra Denton (Pepa) expressed in recent filings her frustration over the ongoing control UMG holds: "It’s frustrating to see decades of our work still controlled by a label, even after Congress gave artists the right to reclaim their music." Their appeal to the Second Circuit challenges the application of termination rights where works are classified as made for hire, a ruling that could set precedent affecting many legacy artists' abilities to regain their catalogs.
Legal analysts note the case's potential to clarify ambiguous boundaries in copyright law concerning creative control versus corporate ownership. The outcome may influence contract drafting and copyright strategies for musicians and labels alike.[Law360]
By the numbers:
- 35 years — period after which authors can terminate copyright assignments under Section 203
- Four albums — Salt-N-Pepa's early catalog involved in the dispute
- March 2024 — month when the initial lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge
Yes, but: While Section 203 permits termination, courts have historically treated works made for hire differently, often limiting artists’ reclamation rights, making the appeal’s outcome uncertain.
What's next: The Second Circuit is expected to schedule oral arguments later in 2024, with a ruling that could reshape copyright termination jurisprudence in the music industry.