AceShowbiz - Salt-N-Pepa have filed a new appeal challenging a court’s dismissal of their lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) regarding the ownership of their master recordings and royalties.

The appeal, submitted on Tuesday, March 31, to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, marks the beginning of Cheryl "Salt" James and Sandra "Pepa" Denton’s effort to revive their copyright case against the world's largest music company. The duo originally sued UMG in 2025, arguing that the company refused to honor their so-called termination rights, a provision in copyright law that permits artists to reclaim ownership of their masters decades after signing them away.

In January, a New York federal judge dismissed Salt-N-Pepa’s claims, ruling that the duo did not directly sign the 1986 recording contract with Next Plateau Records. Instead, the judge found that the record deal was between Next Plateau — later sold to London Records and eventually absorbed by UMG — and Noise in the Attic Productions, a company controlled by the duo’s music producer, Hurby "Luv Bug" Azor.

However, Richard Busch, a seasoned music attorney newly representing Salt-N-Pepa on appeal, argues in the brief that this dismissal was flawed. According to Busch, the court failed to recognize that Salt-N-Pepa originally owned their music when it was created and that their 1986 contract with Azor initiated a continuous "chain of grants" transferring rights.

Busch explains, "When correctly interpreted, the 1986 agreements together should be read to mean that the copyrights originated with Salt-N-Pepa, and then were transferred to Noise in the Attic, then Next Plateau, next to London, and eventually to UMG." He adds that because Section 203 of the copyright law states termination rights are binding against successors in interest, Salt-N-Pepa’s termination notices should effectively revert ownership rights back to the duo, terminating UMG’s claims.

The appeal also highlights broader legislative intent behind termination rights. Busch notes that Congress created these rights to address the imbalance of bargaining power faced by artists when negotiating contracts with entities exploiting their works. He emphasizes that the 1986 deal signed by Salt-N-Pepa exemplified such an imbalance.

Further underscoring the stakes, the brief points out that Salt-N-Pepa’s catalog continues to generate significant revenue for UMG and its predecessors. The appeal states that the catalog produced roughly $1 million in royalties during the five months before the lawsuit was filed, with UMG receiving the majority of these earnings.

In a statement to Billboard, Busch described the case as critically important for all recording artists, asserting that the district court erred in its ruling and expressing anticipation for oral arguments before the Second Circuit.

UMG has not yet commented on the appeal. The company is expected to submit its response brief in May.

Termination rights have become increasingly significant in music industry legal battles. Other artists, including 2 Live Crew, have successfully used these rights to reclaim their catalogs. Additionally, large-scale class-action lawsuits against UMG and Sony over termination rights were settled in 2024.

Traditionally, termination rights were considered applicable only to U.S. copyright grants. However, a groundbreaking appeals court decision earlier this year challenged that view by ruling that termination rights can be asserted internationally, potentially disrupting longstanding industry practices. In response, subsidiaries of all three major music companies have recently acquired the copyright involved in that case to pursue a Supreme Court review.

The outcome of Salt-N-Pepa’s appeal could have far-reaching implications for artists’ control over their master recordings and royalty shares, underscoring ongoing tensions between performers and major music corporations over rights and revenue distribution.