Salt-N-Pepa, the Grammy-winning hip-hop duo, is continuing its legal battle to regain control of their master recordings. On February 4, the group filed a notice of appeal challenging a January 8th ruling by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, which dismissed their lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG). The core of the dispute centers on whether Salt-N-Pepa can invoke a provision of the 1976 Copyright Act to terminate UMG’s ownership of their recordings, a legal strategy increasingly employed by artists seeking to reclaim their work.
The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, directly contests Judge Cote’s decision that Salt-N-Pepa – Cheryl James and Sandra Denton – never actually held the copyrights to their sound recordings, and therefore couldn’t terminate UMG’s ownership. This case, numbered 26-253, highlights a complex legal question regarding the initial ownership of recordings and the conditions under which artists can reclaim them decades later. The stakes are significant, as Salt-N-Pepa alleges their recordings generate substantial revenue, approximately $1 million in the last five months alone from synchronization licenses, and tens of millions annually overall.
The Roots of the Dispute: Contracts and Ownership
The legal battle stems from contracts signed in 1986. Salt-N-Pepa’s initial recording agreement wasn’t directly with UMG, but with Noise In The Attic Productions, Inc. (NITA), a company owned by their producer, Hurby Azor. According to Judge Cote’s ruling, that agreement stipulated that NITA would be the “sole and exclusive owner” of all rights to the recordings, including the sound copyrights. On the same day, Azor entered into a separate distribution agreement with Next Plateau Records – a company that UMG later acquired – transferring ownership of NITA to Next Plateau.
Salt-N-Pepa argued that a “letter of intent” they signed alongside the distribution agreement constituted a direct grant of rights to Next Plateau. Yet, Judge Cote disagreed, stating that the agreements from 1986 “do not indicate that the plaintiffs ever owned the copyrights in the sound recordings or granted a transfer of those copyrights to anyone else.” The judge emphasized that the sole copyright transfer occurred from NITA to Next Plateau Records, and that Salt-N-Pepa could only terminate transfers they themselves had executed.
A High-Profile Legal Team Joins the Fight
Adding a fresh dimension to the case, Salt-N-Pepa has retained Richard S. Busch, a Nashville-based partner at King & Ballow, as counsel for the appeal. Busch is a well-known figure in music copyright law, having secured significant victories in high-profile cases. He notably represented the estate of Marvin Gaye in the landmark “Blurred Lines” copyright infringement case against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s finding of copyright infringement in 2018. SeattlePI reports Busch has also represented The Script and Yellowcard in copyright disputes.
UMG’s Response and the Streaming Pause
Universal Music Group has consistently maintained its position that the lawsuit is without merit. Following Judge Cote’s initial ruling, a UMG spokesperson stated the company had “attempted repeatedly to resolve the issue amicably, enhance artist compensation, and ensure fans have access to Salt-N-Pepa’s music” even without any legal obligation to do so. Despite this, the relationship between the two parties has been strained. UMG rejected Salt-N-Pepa’s termination notices in June 2022, and in May 2024, removed dozens of the duo’s recordings from U.S. Streaming platforms.
A temporary exploitation agreement was reached in July 2024, but Salt-N-Pepa terminated it in April 2025, leading UMG to halt all U.S. Exploitation of the recordings. Much of Salt-N-Pepa’s early catalog remains unavailable for streaming in the United States. This situation unfolded even as Salt-N-Pepa was being honored with induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in November 2025.
What’s Next for Salt-N-Pepa’s Masters?
The appeal now moves to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where Busch will argue that Judge Cote’s interpretation of the 1976 Copyright Act is too narrow and that Salt-N-Pepa should have the opportunity to reclaim ownership of their recordings. The outcome of this appeal could have broader implications for artists seeking to regain control of their master recordings under similar circumstances. The case highlights the ongoing tension between artists’ rights and the established practices of the music industry regarding copyright ownership and revenue distribution.
As of February 24, 2026, the next step in the legal process will be the scheduling of oral arguments before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. No date has been set yet. Fans and industry observers will be watching closely to see how this case unfolds, as it could set a precedent for future disputes over music copyrights.
What are your thoughts on artists reclaiming their masters? Share your opinions in the comments below, and please share this article with anyone interested in the evolving landscape of music copyright law.
