Salt-N-Pepa sue Universal Music over master recordings rights

Salt-N-Pepa vs. UMG: The Battle for Hip-Hop’s Blueprint

On May 19, 2025, rap pioneers Salt-N-Pepa officially entered legal combat with Universal Music Group (UMG), filing a federal lawsuit to reclaim ownership of their iconic catalog—including generational anthems like “Push It” (1987) and “Shoop” (1993). Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton allege that UMG not only rejected their termination notices under the Copyright Act of 1976 but also retaliated by scrubbing their music from U.S. streaming platforms.

Their case echoes growing tensions between legacy artists and major labels, a trend heating up in 2025 as more musicians challenge ownership structures that once seemed untouchable.

“UMG is erasing our impact—our history,” Salt said via legal filing. Fans echoed the sentiment on X: “Salt-N-Pepa walked so today’s artists could run. Give them their masters.” Let’s break down the lawsuit, its potential ripple effects across the music industry, and why so many artists—from Drake to Taylor Swift—are following suit.

Salt-N-Pepa Legacy: First Ladies of Rap, Still Fighting

Salt-N-Pepa didn’t just make music—they made history. As one of the first female rap groups to break into the mainstream, their platinum debut Hot, Cool & Vicious changed the game. “Push It” hit No. 19 on the Billboard Hot 100, while “Shoop” and “Whatta Man” from 1993’s Very Necessary dominated radio and club playlists for years.

Their influence earned them a Grammy in 1995, a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2021, and a 2025 nomination for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Still, they’ve had to battle to be taken seriously—first in hip-hop, now in court.

Salt-N-Pepa Lawsuit: Reclaiming Their Rights

Salt-N-Pepa’s 166-page complaint, filed in New York federal court, cites the Copyright Act of 1976’s Section 203. This clause gives artists the right to reclaim their master recordings 35 years after signing a contract. The duo served termination notices in 2022 for albums like Hot, Cool & Vicious (1986) and Very Necessary (1993), but UMG fired back, arguing the records were “works made for hire”—a legal loophole labels use to keep control.

UMG’s next move? Pulling Salt-N-Pepa’s catalog from U.S. streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music in 2024, costing the artists more than $1 million in royalties, per Rolling Stone. The lawsuit now demands punitive damages and a permanent injunction to stop UMG from further exploiting their catalog.

UMG Retaliation: A “Malicious” Move?

The suit accuses UMG of retaliation after the duo filed for termination. Between May and July 2024, hits like “Shoop,” “Let’s Talk About Sex,” and “Tramp” mysteriously disappeared from major streaming platforms. According to Salt-N-Pepa’s legal team, the takedown was a calculated attack to devalue their masters and “punish” them for asserting ownership rights.

Industry insiders say the removal was more than petty—it was strategic. Salt-N-Pepa’s catalog earned over $1 million in sync licensing in just five months.

“This is about power,” one anonymous label exec told Billboard. “Salt-N-Pepa’s catalog is money in the bank, and UMG isn’t giving that up easily.”

Copyright Act 1976: The Legal Loophole Labels Fear

Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976, artists can reclaim rights to their original work after 35 years. That law has empowered legends like Prince, Paul McCartney, and now Salt-N-Pepa to go after their master recordings. The twist? Labels often argue the music was created as “work for hire”—meaning they still own it.

UMG claims Salt-N-Pepa weren’t actual parties to their 1986 contract. But the duo’s attorneys insist otherwise, citing contract language that directly disputes the “work for hire” claim. It’s legal ping-pong that could reshape how legacy catalogs are handled for decades to come.

Artists Suing Labels: A 2025 Power Shift

Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) isn’t just about reclaiming old hits—it’s part of a growing rebellion inside the music industry. In January 2025, Drake filed a defamation suit against UMG after the label allegedly supported the release of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” which accused Drake of being a “pedophile.” UMG responded by claiming the track was protected speech, but the message was clear: even the biggest artists are no longer afraid to challenge the labels that built—and banked off—their careers.

This case follows a pattern that’s been building for years. Taylor Swift famously re-recorded her early albums to bypass licensing restrictions after her original masters were sold to Scooter Braun. Prince laid the groundwork in the ’90s, appearing in public with the word “slave” scrawled on his face in protest of Warner Bros. controlling his catalog. These weren’t just headline moments—they were warning shots fired at a system that long prioritized label profit over artist ownership.

What we’re seeing in 2025 is a tipping point. Artists, both legacy acts and newcomers, are lawyering up and speaking out, publicly challenging outdated contracts and label strongholds. As Salt-N-Pepa head to court to claim rights to “Push It” and “Shoop,” their fight symbolizes more than a financial dispute—it’s a demand for respect, transparency, and rightful ownership in an industry that has profited off their voices for decades.

The New Artist Agenda: Ownership, Autonomy & Accountability

From hip-hop to pop, the tide is turning. Megan Thee Stallion’s bitter dispute with 1501 Certified Entertainment over control of her music revealed how even indie labels can trap artists in restrictive contracts. Despite chart success and Grammy wins, Megan had to fight publicly for the right to release her own music—sparking conversations about gender, race, and power in the modern music industry.

Meanwhile, Kesha’s years-long legal war with producer Dr. Luke peeled back the dark layers of industry abuse and contract entrapment. Though her case centered around sexual misconduct allegations, it also underscored how labels and producers often hold disproportionate control over an artist’s creative and personal freedom. Her battle resonated beyond pop—it became a cultural flashpoint for women across all entertainment sectors.

These stories, including Salt-N-Pepa’s, reflect a clear trend: artists are done playing nice. They’re reclaiming narratives, renegotiating deals, and, in many cases, going independent altogether. Whether it’s reclaiming masters, suing over defamation, or refusing to release new music under bad contracts, the message is loud and clear: artists want ownership, autonomy, and accountability—and they’re willing to fight for it, in courtrooms and on social media.

Public Reaction: Fan Love and Industry Side-Eyes

The public response has been intense and emotional. With fans worried about their Rock & Roll Hall of Fame status. Critics, however, are watching closely. Some music execs worry this could set off a tidal wave of older artists demanding the same. Meanwhile, fans are simply asking for their favorite songs to return to playlists—and for justice to be served.

Music Artist Are Taking Back Creative Control

Salt-N-Pepa’s case isn’t just about reclaiming hits like “Push It” or “Shoop.” It’s about legacy, leverage, and leadership. As they stand on the brink of Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction, Salt-N-Pepa are once again breaking ground. This time in courtrooms, not concert halls. Furthermore, this lawsuit adds to the growing conversations around entertainment.

Whether you’re a casual fan, music lawyer, or creator navigating your own contracts, this story is a lens into the music industry’s future: one where artists refuse to be silenced.