Salt-N-Pepa sue record label to reclaim rights to their recordings including ‘Push It'
The groundbreaking duo behind hip-hop classics, including 1993's 'Shoop' and 1987's 'Push It' says in a lawsuit that Universal Music Group is violating copyright law by refusing to agree to turn over the rights to their master recordings.
Cheryl 'Salt' James and Sandra 'Pepa' Denton filed the lawsuit in federal court in New York on Monday, asserting that the Copyright Act of 1976, which says that after several decades artists can terminate previous agreements and reclaim ownership of their recordings, clearly now applies to them.
Advertisement
4 Sandra Denton and Cheryl James of Salt-N-Pepa attend the Room to Read 2025 New York Gala on May 13, 2025, in New York City.
Getty Images for Room to Read
The fight, which has led to UMG pulling Salt-N-Pepa's music from streaming services, comes as many artists with beloved legacies are making lucrative sales of their catalogs, while others get stuck in classic record-label battles over old contracts.
'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,' the suit says.
UMG representatives did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Advertisement
The lawsuit suggests that situations like Salt-N-Pepa's are the very reason the provision of the copyright act exists.
It allows artists who made deals 'at the beginning of their careers' when they were relatively powerless to use the cultural standing and musical legacy they later established.
The suit says James and Denton filed to terminate their agreement under the law in 2022, 'eager to retake full ownership of their art and legacy,' but that, 'Inexplicably, UMG has refused to honor' their rights.
Advertisement
4 Denton, DJ Spinderella, and James (from left to right), attended a ceremony honoring Salt-N-Pepa with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Nov. 4, 2022, in Los Angeles.
Invision
James and Denton say that by law, they should now be able to own early recordings, including those from their 1986 debut album, 'Hot, Cool & Vicious,' and 1987's 'Push It,' a B-side whose remix caught on and became their breakthrough hit.
They say other recordings should legally be theirs later this year and in 2026, including the 1993 album 'Very Necessary,' which includes 'Shoop' and 'Whatta Man.'
The duo is seeking both actual damages for money lost and punitive damages in amounts to be determined for UMG's actions. The suit says actual damages could 'well exceed $1 million.'
Advertisement
4 The groundbreaking duo behind hip-hop classics says in a lawsuit that Universal Music Group is violating copyright law by refusing to agree to turn over the rights to their master recordings.
Getty Images for Room to Read
They also want a permanent injunction confirming their rights to the recordings.
They said by pulling the songs from streaming and other commercial platforms, the label has 'maliciously punished' Salt-N-Pepa 'for daring to assert their rights.'
The label's lawyers said in letters included as exhibits in the lawsuit that they have encouraged mediation and want to reach a 'mutually acceptable resolution.'
But the UMG lawyers said in the letters that James and Denton were not even personally parties in the 1986 agreement that covered their initial albums, and there is no evidence that they granted the label copyright that they can now reclaim.
UMG maintains that the recordings were 'works made for hire,' which would not allow for the reclaiming of rights. Salt-N-Pepa's lawsuit says the women's agreements with the label make it very clear that they were not.
The Queens, New York, duo of James and Denton became Salt-N-Pepa in 1985.
Advertisement
They were later joined by DJ Spinderella, who was not part of the early agreements under dispute and is not involved in the lawsuit.
'Salt-N-Pepa boldly changed the look of rap and hip-hop,' the lawsuit says. 'They were not afraid to talk about sex and to share their thoughts about men. Their sound recordings 'Let's Talk About Sex' and 'None of Your Business,' for example, were huge hits. They talked candidly about women's sexuality and empowerment when such topics were frowned upon, heavily criticized, and called taboo.'
4 Cheryl 'Salt' James (left) and Sandra 'Pepa' Denton (right) filed the lawsuit in federal court in New York on Monday, asserting that the Copyright Act of 1976 now applies to them.
Brian Zak/NY Post
Advertisement
In 1995, they became the first female rap group to win a Grammy, and in 2021, they received a Grammy lifetime achievement award.
Later this year, they'll become members of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame when they receive the organization's Musical Influence Award.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 hours ago
- New York Post
Stephen A. Smith says he and LeBron James have ‘no relationship' after bitter feud
Things did not end on a good note with Stephen A. Smith and LeBron James. During an appearance on former NBA All-Star Gilbert Arenas' 'Gil's Arena' podcast Friday, Smith said that he has zero contact with James and does not have any interest in ever speaking to him again. 'There's no situation and there's no relationship,' Smith said. 'He doesn't like me, and I don't like him.' Advertisement 3 Stephen A. Smith looks on during the game between the Indiana Pacers and the Oklahoma City Thunder during Game 2 of the 2025 NBA Finals on June 8, 2025 at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NBAE via Getty Images Smith's comments stem from his feud with the 21-time All-Star earlier this year, when the two threw jabs at each other during various appearances on ESPN, which ultimately led to an in-person confrontation during a game in March. The ESPN sports personality added that other things happened between him and James 'behind the scenes' that the public does not know about. Advertisement 'All I would say is people don't know the things that have happened behind the scenes,' Smith said. 'Things that have been said, who they've been said to. The kind of things that have been engaged in in an effort to hurt me, along with contemporaries and others.' Smith also mentioned how he did not appreciate how James came at him on 'The Pat McAfee Show,' which airs directly after 'First Take' on ESPN. 3 Los Angeles Lakers forward LeBron James arguing with the ref in the second half of a game against the Knicks. Charles Wenzelberg / New York Post 'There's a lot of s–t that I don't say. And there's a reason that I feel the way that I do. And the last straw was him approaching me and turning the Bronny thing into something about me attacking somebody's family, when it was him I was talking about. Not Bronny. Advertisement 'And then to go on 'The Pat McAfee Show,' which comes directly on after my show. On the channel that I work on. To insult me. Now, people can get into all kind of components that go into it and all that other stuff. I have nothing to say.' 3 Stephen A. Smith looks on before the game between the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Indiana Pacers during Game 3 of the 2025 NBA Finals on June 11, 2025 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. NBAE via Getty Images Smith concluded by saying that he plans to only mention James in the context of NBA analysis going forward. Advertisement 'I'm never going to denigrate any employer, any partner, or myself by getting into anything excessively, unnecessarily, when it comes to him or anybody else,' Smith said. 'I'm going to do my job. I'm going to cover the game of basketball. 'But if I never, ever speak to him again in life, that will be OK. And I'm good with it.'
Los Angeles Times
21 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
UMG chief Lucian Grainge calls Drake's ‘Not Like Us' lawsuit ‘ridiculous'
Universal Music Group Chief Executive Lucian Grainge called Drake's lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar's hit diss track 'Not Like Us' a 'farcical' effort that's 'groundless and indeed ridiculous.' In a declaration letter filed Thursday night in the Southern District of New York, Grainge said that Drake's accusation that UMG (the parent label firm to both Drake and Lamar) defamed him and damaged his career 'makes no sense due to the fact that the company that I run, Universal Music Group N.V., has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Drake, including longstanding and critical financial support for his recording career, the purchase and ownership of the bulk of his recording catalog, and the purchase of his music publishing rights.' Drake signed a new deal with UMG label Republic in 2022 for a reported $400 million, and he's one of the bestselling artists of the last 20 years. Yet Interscope artist Lamar's scathing 'Not Like Us' famously capped a venomous battle between the two artists, which resulted in a pair of Grammy wins for Lamar, who performed the song at the Super Bowl halftime show. Drake's attorneys, in discovery, have recently tried to obtain UMG's contract with Lamar and information about his personal life (Drake accused Lamar of beating his partner in the song 'Family Matters'). Drake has accused UMG of both defamation and running a clandestine campaign to boost 'Not Like Us' at the expense of his own reputation and career. A notably exasperated Grainge wrote to the court that 'Given my role, I am accustomed (and unfortunately largely resigned) to personal attacks, and I further recognize that a frequent strategy of UMG's litigation opponents is to attempt to waste my and UMG's time and resources with discovery of the sort that Drake is seeking here — either in an attempt to gain media attention or in an effort to force some kind of commercial renegotiation or financial concessions.' Grainge also denied having any personal involvement in the rollout or marketing for 'Not Like Us.' 'Whilst, as part of my role, I certainly have financial oversight of and responsibility for UMG's global businesses,' he said, 'the proposition that I was involved in, much less responsible for, reviewing and approving the content of 'Not Like Us,' its cover art or music video, or for determining or directing the promotion of those materials, is groundless and indeed ridiculous.' In a separate letter to the court, UMG said that 'The premise of Drake's motion — that he could not have lost a rap battle unless it was the product of some imagined secret conspiracy going to the top of UMG's corporate structure — is absurd.'
Black America Web
a day ago
- Black America Web
Drake's Latest Legal Filing Digs Into Kendrick Lamar's Domestic Violence Allegations & Dave Free's Relationship To His Kids
As Kendrick Lamar embarks on his Grand National tour and Drake appears scorned on every stage he steps on during his tour with PARTYNEXTDOOR, it is clear that the battle isn't over. Plus, there's that glaring lawsuit Drake filed against UMG that fans continue to analyze. Now, Drake's legal team has filed two new motions against the record company, taking direct aim at CEO Sir Lucian Grainge and 'Not Like Us,' which, we remind you, included cover art that depicted Drake's Toronto mansion with sex offender markings. 'UMG is improperly shielding its CEO, Sir Lucian Grainge, from scrutiny in this litigation, despite his direct involvement in the publication and promotion of the defamatory recording, cover image, and video at issue,' the suit states. We care about your data. See our privacy policy. They argue that UMG can hold itself accountable since it altered the language of its filings, adjusting the level of Grainge's involvement from 'no involvement' to 'no meaningful involvement.' But the OVO boss' legal team isn't buying it, saying he's actively involved because he was at the Grammys and was pretty hyped when Lamar took home several awards. The suit reads, 'Lucian Grainge is highly likely to have relevant documents about the Recording and the 2025 Grammy Awards, as he was recorded at the Grammy Awards celebrating Kendrick Lamar's wins and high-fiving Lamar's producer and mentor as the Recording played in the background.' Drake also argues that the defamation against him is profitable for UMG because they own both—his label, Republic Records, and Lamar's Interscope. They believe this also led to a significant payout for Interscope CEO John Janick, prompting a request to review his pay structure for the past five years, including his 2024 incentives, and Lamar's catalogue valuation over the same period. 'These records will demonstrate the financial motives underlying UMG's decision to promote the defamatory recording rather than suppress it,' the filing reads. Plus, as with any court case, the lawyers are digging into past lyric censorship, as recent as his beef with Pusha T, proving they do have the power to intervene, whether it benefits the artist or to their detriment. The lawyers continue, 'Def Jam, a UMG label, intervened to remove certain verses from Pusha T's 'The Story of Adidon' that were perceived as damaging to other artists. This selective enforcement is probative of UMG's intent and actual malice here.' But it's not just Lamar's lyrics influencing the lawsuit; many of Drake's claims are being added too, as he's now formally inquiring about all allegations he's made on 'Family Matters,' like calling him a domestic abuser, and claiming that one of his kids is biologically Dave Free's. They're asking for info 'relating to allegations of domestic violence, violence against women, and/or other forms of violence committed by Kendrick Lamar Duckworth' and information about 'David Isaac Friley (a/k/a Dave Free) and his relationship with Kendrick Lamar Duckworth and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth's children.' See how social media is reacting to the latest in the Drake vs UMG case below. Drake's Latest Legal Filing Digs Into Kendrick Lamar's Domestic Violence Allegations & Dave Free's Relationship To His Kids was originally published on
