Universal Music has again asked the US courts to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it by the rap duo Salt N Pepa, who are trying to reclaim ownership of their 1980s recordings by exercising the termination right that exists in US copyright law.
The major previously rejected termination notices that were filed by the rappers on the basis that deals signed by the duo in the 1980s were ‘work for hire’ arrangements, which means the termination right doesn’t apply. That prompted litigation from Salt N Pepa, real names Cheryl James and Sandra Denton.
The record company “properly disputed the validity” of the termination notices, it says in a new court filing submitted last week. Because the “relevant agreements pursuant to which the sound recordings were created” did not involve a transfer of copyright from the rappers to their original record company.
Which, in legal terms, means there was “no grant of copyright rights”, which – Universal insists – is “a fundamental requirement of the Copyright Act’s termination provisions”.
James and Denton sued Universal in May. They have since been outspoken about their legal battle with the major, with Denton recently declaring in an interview, “The record companies have been getting away with this for a lot of years and it’s time for us to fight for our rights”.
Under US law, if a creator transfers ownership of a copyright they created to a business partner, like a record label or music publisher, they have a one-time opportunity to cancel that transfer and reclaim the rights after 35 years. It’s now common for US songwriters who entered into long-term publishing deals decades ago to exercise the termination right and reclaim the rights in their songs within the US.
However, there have been various disputes within the record industry about if and when the termination right applies to record deals. If an artist is employed on a ‘work for hire’ basis by a label or producer, then technically the label or producer is the default first owner of the recording copyright. Which means there was never a transfer of rights between the artist and the business partner, so there is nothing to terminate.
Universal argues that that is what happened with Salt N Pepa, who had a deal with producer Hurby Azor and his company, who in turn did a deal with the label Next Plateau Records. It then had a partnership with London Records, which is now part of Universal.
The major set out this argument – running through the slightly complicated series of deals relating to Salt N Pepa’s early recordings – in a court filing back in July, in which it urged the judge to dismiss the rappers’ litigation. James and Denton then filed an amended lawsuit earlier this month, which is what Universal responded to last week.
Most of the major’s arguments in favour of dismissal are the same as in July, but it also responds to some of the additions that James and Denton made to their lawsuit earlier this month. That includes pointing to an ‘inducement letter’ that was attached to Azor’s 1980s contract with Next Plateau which, the rappers say, shows that there was – in fact – a transfer of rights from them to Azor and then to the label.
That would mean, they claim, they were not actually employed on a work for hire basis, and instead there was a grant of rights at the start of the recording process, which is what they now want to terminate.
But Universal says relying on this letter is “a desperate attempt” to “rectify an obvious deficiency” in their original lawsuit, but a futile desperate attempt, because “the inducement letter does not contain or refer to a grant of copyright rights”.
The major’s new filing goes on, “this newfound alleged grant never references any copyright rights and simply contains ‘belt-and-suspenders’ language”, in which the rappers guarantee commitments made by Azor, who was “the signatory to the agreement”.
Therefore, it concludes, even in its amended form, James and Denton’s lawsuit should be dismissed.
