Salt-N-Pepa are suing Universal Music Group (UMG) for the rights to their catalog, which includes enduring rap hits like 1987’s “Push It” and 1993’s “Shoop.” The duo says UMG has pulled its songs from streaming platforms in retaliation for its efforts to reclaim ownership of its masters, according to documents viewed by Pitchfork.
Salt-N-Pepa’s rappers, Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton, are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The group’s former DJ, Spinderella, is not a party to the complaint.
James and Denton are basing their claim on the Copyright Act of 1976, which allows artists to terminate contracts and reclaim their recordings after several decades. How much time must pass, and how the rights will be transferred, has long been a source of contention between artists and their longstanding labels. The lawsuit argues, “UMG has indicated that it will hold Plaintiffs’ rights hostage even if it means tanking the value of Plaintiffs’ music catalogue and depriving their fans of access to their work.” Salt-N-Pepa are seeking both damages for lost income and punitive damages for UMG’s apparent refusal to comply with the copyright act.
A legal representative for Salt-N-Pepa—who are being inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame via the Musical Influence category—said in a statement, “As they prepare to make history as only the second female hip-hop act ever inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Salt-N-Pepa are also fighting to reclaim rightful ownership of their iconic, barrier-breaking music under the U.S. Copyright Act. In a stunning act of retaliation, UMG has pulled their songs from all major platforms in the U.S., punishing them for asserting those rights and silencing decades of culture-shifting work. Like many artists, they’re challenging a system that profits from their work while denying them control. This fight is about more than contracts—it’s about legacy, justice, and the future of artist ownership.”
When reached by Pitchfork, a spokesperson for Universal Music Group stated, “Salt-N-Pepa’s own legal filings demonstrate the repeated attempts we have made to resolve this matter amicably (including offers to enter into a mediation) ever since the artists served an invalid termination notice. Although we had no legal obligation to do so, we still sought to find a way to improve the artists’ compensation and pay them directly—even after they had sold their royalty streams to a third party. Clearly, the artists’ legal counsel thinks they can use the threat of negative media coverage from the lawsuit to achieve their unreasonable demands. Despite this, and consistent with our longstanding practice, we remain committed to working towards an amicable resolution.”
