Salt-N-Pepa has received significant legal support in their UMG Masters battle, with lawyers arguing the case could reshape how artist ownership works in the music industry.
Salt-N-Pepa just gained some serious legal muscle in its battle with UMG over its masters, and the lawyers involved have made it clear that the case could completely reshape how artist ownership works in the music industry.
The National Association of Entertainment and Arts Lawyers is now siding with Cheryl James and Sandra Denton, who argue the entire dispute shows an imbalance that has been persistent in the music industry for decades.
The organization states this directly in the document:
“Congress has long held that ‘authors [as] The fundamental beneficiary of copyright under the Constitution. “At the same time, Congress is soberly aware that economic realities often force authors to transfer the benefits of copyright to industry intermediaries. Furthermore, in many cases, such transactions between authors and industry are financially and otherwise unbalanced in favor of the intermediaries.”
This framework places Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit into a larger context.
This isn’t just a group trying to take back their music. It’s about how the deal is structured and who actually benefits from it.
The lawyer then explained why the law provides artists with a way to fight back years later:
“To correct this inversion of constitutional interests, Congress has always ensured that authors are given a second chance to control and benefit from the fruits of their labor. Under the Copyright Act of 1976 (the ‘1976 Act’), second chances are secured through the so-called ‘right of termination,’ which provides authors and their heirs with the inalienable right to reclaim any copyright previously transferred or licensed by the original author.”
This is the heart of the Salt-N-Pepa case.
They used termination rights to try to wrest back control of their recordings, a legal move that has been in the law books for decades.
UMG’s defense was that the recordings were “works made for hire,” which would lock ownership in the hands of the record company.
But attorneys for Salt-N-Pepa argue that the lower court missed the point entirely on this issue:
“The District Court’s opinion and order upholding UMG was intended to sidestep the ‘works-for-hire’ issue. But in doing so, the court ignored a basic principle of copyright law that, in the absence of a legitimate ‘works-for-hire’ relationship, the creator is the author and original owner of a copyrighted work from the moment the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.”
They say the court skipped over key legal issues and based its entire judgment on that gap.
The document also draws a clear line between artists and labels, identifying who actually created the work:
“In context, the most likely authors of a recording are the performers, and possibly the producers, who play an active role in shaping the sonic landscape by contributing meaningful creative expression to the recording. Conversely, record labels are rarely, if ever, considered the authors of an artist’s recordings, given their purely logistical and financial role in the recording process.”
This language directly challenges the entire idea that a label can claim ownership simply because it funds or controls the process.
Lawyers also warned that courts cannot rely solely on assumptions or contract language:
“Basing on an implied factual premise is itself reversible error because ‘there must be findings, whether stated in the court’s opinion or separately, that are sufficient to show the factual basis for the final conclusion.'”
They resisted even more strongly a common industry tactic:
“What the district court missed in this case is that simply labeling something in a record contract as a ‘work for hire’ or owned by the record company ‘from the outset’ does not prove that.”
This quote goes to the heart of decades-old label contracts. AllHipHop reports that the lawsuit is part of a wave of artists revisiting old deals, especially as catalogs become more valuable in the age of streaming.
Salt-N-Pepa’s case is notable because it directly challenges how record labels can use “work-for-hire” claims to retain ownership rights.
The irony here cannot be ignored.
The same legal tool now helping Salt-N-Pepa put pressure on UMG could also help the brand in another major dispute.
In UMG’s ongoing battle over Drake and Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” multiple attorneys have filed amicus briefs in support of the label, meaning that while amicus support could weaken UMG’s position in this case, it could simultaneously strengthen the company’s position in another court.
