IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Salt-N-Pepa brings copyright lawsuit against UMG, but cannot push it over the line, (Jan 9, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The rap group’s producer, not the two rappers themselves, owned the master recording rights from day one.

Two popular 1980s-era rappers could not terminate their putative transfers of master recording rights to their music producer because their recording agreement specified that the producer, not the band, owned the rights to those works from the get-go, the federal court for Manhattan has held. The court, in dismissing the case solely on the basis of contract interpretation, thereby stayed away from the controversial topic of whether sound recordings constitute works for hire on behalf of the producer or record label that directs the in-studio performances (James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-04182-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by the two members of Salt-N-Pepa, the chart-topping rap group that reached its peak of fame in the 1980s and early 1990s (though their most widely known song, Push It, continues to chart in certain regions even today). The complaint alleged that Universal Music wrongly refused to recognize the band’s termination of a 1986 agreement that, the rappers claim, transferred to their producer (and by subsequent transfers, to UMG) the rights to certain master recordings. Worse, the complaint alleged, UMG has held “hostage” those sound recordings pending the outcome of negotiations over the termination rights. The rappers, seeking to remedy this ostensible injustice, sought a declaration that the termination notice was valid.

UMG moved to dismiss the complaint, leading to this opinion.

Recording contract. The court dismissed the complaint on the basis of contract interpretation. According to the complaint, the rappers—widely known as the First Females of Rap—entered into a recording contract in 1986 with their then-music producer Herb Azor. The producer, in turn, assigned his rights to a record label called Next Plateau Records, which was later acquired by UMG. The rappers, acting under a provision of the Copyright Act that allows creators to terminate their transfers of copyrights beginning 35 years after the time the contract was entered into, claimed that their termination notice—served in 2022 and putatively effective in 2024—was valid. But was it? UMG claimed that it was not. The court agreed.

The termination notice was invalid for three reasons, UMG argued—but the court only had to rule on one. UMG argued, first, that the rappers never owned the master recording rights to works created pursuant to the 1986 agreement because that agreement specified that their producer would own those rights from the beginning. Thus, in UMG’s view, there was never anything to transfer. Second, UMG argued, given the producer’s inherit direction and control of the recording sessions, the rappers performed as employees of his company—making the resulting sound recordings works for hire. And third, UMG asserted, the recordings constituted derivative works of prior songs, and therefore the rights to those recordings could not recovered by termination. The court ruled in favor of UMG on the first argument, thus avoiding the other two contentions.

The plain language of the agreement supported UMG’s view of the case, the court found. The agreement specified that as between the producer’s company and the artists, the company “shall be the sole and exclusive owner of any and all rights, title and/or interest in and to master recordings recorded hereunder, including but not limited to the worldwide sound copyrights therein and the renewal rights thereto.” What’s more, the court observed, when the production company transferred its own rights to Next Plateau Records it warranted that it owned the rights to the sound recordings—and the rappers, in their own side letter to the record label, specifically guaranteed that “all of the warranties and representations and covenants” made by the producer in that agreement were accurate. None of the agreements at issue, the court concluded, “characterize[d] [the rap group] as the owner of the copyrights, let alone effect[ed] a transfer by [the group] of copyrights. Thus, there was no assignment of rights to terminate.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-04182-DLC.

Judge: Cote, D.

Attorneys: Heidi G. Crikelair (Blank Rome LLP) for Cheryl James. Richard S. Mandel (Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, PC) for UMG Recordings, Inc.

Companies: UMG Recordings, Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews