AceShowbiz - Universal Music Group (UMG) has submitted a new legal brief opposing Salt-N-Pepa's effort to regain ownership of their master recordings, asserting that the copyright termination right under U.S. law is not absolute.

On Tuesday (May 5), UMG urged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Cheryl "Salt" James and Sandra "Pepa" Denton, who last year sought to reclaim the rights to their late 1980s and early 1990s catalog. Salt-N-Pepa's claim relies on the "termination right" provision of the U.S. Copyright Act, which allows artists to recoup ownership of intellectual property decades after initially assigning it.

The rappers' lawsuit follows a January ruling by a New York federal judge who dismissed their case. The judge determined that Salt-N-Pepa did not possess termination rights because they never personally signed the 1986 recording contract. Instead, the agreement was between Next Plateau Records—now part of UMG—and the duo’s producer, Hurby "Luv Bug" Azor.

Salt-N-Pepa have appealed the decision, supported by the Music Artists Coalition led by Irving Azoff. They argue the lower court’s ruling contradicts Congress’ original intent behind the termination right, which seeks to empower creators who had limited leverage in early career contracts. However, UMG’s attorneys counter that the appellants overlook critical limitations embedded within the termination right.

In their response, UMG emphasized that while congressional policy recognizes a creator’s “second chance” to reclaim value, the law carefully restricts when and how termination rights can be exercised. The company’s lawyers wrote, "The lower court correctly found that this case falls outside any termination right granted by Congress."

UMG specifically highlighted that Congress excluded the ability for artists to terminate copyright transfers made by third parties like Azor. This foundational flaw, according to UMG, invalidates Salt-N-Pepa's claim. The company insisted the judge did not create new legal standards but applied existing principles requiring a copyright grant be made by the true rights owner.

The brief further addressed critics who accuse the district court of inventing a novel standard, stating, "The analysis of the 1986 agreements reflects nothing more than the modest and obviously necessary requirement that a grant of copyright be made by the actual owner of the rights."

Salt-N-Pepa’s legal team has not yet responded publicly to UMG’s filing. The duo will have the opportunity to submit a written rebuttal before a panel of Second Circuit judges holds oral arguments. The court will then decide whether to reinstate the lawsuit.

This appeal is one of several ongoing legal disputes wherein UMG is vigorously defending the boundaries of termination rights. The company is also involved in a broader coalition with Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and BMG challenging a recent court decision that expanded termination rights beyond the United States.

Last month, these major labels collectively purchased the disputed copyright in that case to bring it before the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue the ruling contradicts long-established industry norms and has disrupted international music dealmaking practices. The coalition has begun petitioning the Supreme Court to review and overturn the decision.

UMG’s resistance to Salt-N-Pepa’s appeal reflects the company’s broader strategy to maintain control over valuable catalogs and limit the scope of termination rights in the music industry. The outcome of these cases could have lasting implications for how artists reclaim ownership and how record companies manage copyrights globally.

As this legal battle unfolds, the music community will be watching closely to see how courts interpret the balance between artist rights and contractual agreements made decades ago. For now, Salt-N-Pepa await their chance to present further arguments to the appeals court in hopes of reversing the dismissal and reclaiming their iconic masters.