Salt-N-Pepa Are Suing To Regain Control Of Their Masters

In 2022, Salt-N-Pepa quietly filed a notice to reclaim the rights to some of their biggest albums — including "Hot, Cool & Vicious" and "A Salt With A Deadly Pepa." Under a provision in U.S. copyright law, the legendary hip-hop duo believed they were finally eligible to take back ownership of the master recordings they originally signed away to a record label nearly 40 years ago.

But when Universal Music Group (UMG) refused their termination request, and then pulled the albums from streaming platforms entirely, Cheryl "Salt" James and Sandra "Pepa" Denton decided to fight back. Earlier this week, they filed a federal lawsuit accusing UMG of violating copyright law, weaponizing their own catalog against them, and holding their music "hostage" in retaliation.

This may sound like a rare feud between a music label and a pioneering rap act. It's not. It's the latest chapter in a long-running, often bitter history of artists discovering that the rights to their biggest hits don't belong to them — and doing whatever it takes to reclaim what should've been theirs all along.

What Are Termination Rights?

In 1976, Congress overhauled U.S. copyright law for the first time in nearly 70 years. The Copyright Act of 1976 gave creators a powerful — though often misunderstood — legal tool: the right to terminate a transfer of copyright 35 years after the fact. In theory, this allows artists who signed away their rights early in their careers (often under lopsided contracts) to take back control later in life. But there's a catch: labels and publishers have fought hard to challenge or delay these efforts, usually by arguing that the artists were simply "work for hire" employees.

Salt-N-Pepa are now facing that exact challenge. In their lawsuit, they say UMG rejected their termination claim without merit, asserting their albums were "works made for hire" — even though the duo's original contracts make no such claim. And when the duo wouldn't back down, UMG allegedly retaliated by removing their earliest albums from U.S. streaming services, effectively cutting off a major revenue stream.

Their lawyers say this isn't just a business dispute — it's a fight over legacy, justice, and artist ownership. And they're far from the only ones to take this fight public.

Sandra and Cheryl in 1988 (Photo by Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)

The "Y.M.C.A." Lawsuit That Changed Everything

Victor Willis, the original lead singer of Village People, knows this fight well.

In the late 1970s, Willis wrote the lyrics to hits like "Y.M.C.A.", "In the Navy", and "Go West." But like many young artists, he didn't own the songs. The rights were held by production companies controlled by French producers Jacques Morali and Henri Belolo. For decades, Willis earned just $30,000–40,000 a year in royalties despite writing some of the most iconic songs of the disco era.

That changed in 2011 when Willis invoked the Copyright Act's termination provision. A brutal four-year legal battle followed. Lawyers for the labels argued that Willis had no ownership rights — that he was just a hired performer. But in 2015, a federal jury sided with Willis. He won back 50% ownership of 33 songs, including "Y.M.C.A."

Since that ruling, Willis has said he now earns millions annually. He even negotiated exclusive rights to perform and license the Village People name. Where he once made pocket change from his biggest hits, he now holds half the value of a catalog potentially worth tens of millions.

Willis's victory wasn't just personal. It set a legal precedent for what artists can reclaim — if they're willing to fight long and hard enough.

Paul McCartney's 40-Year Quest To Get Back Beatles Songs

Paul McCartney's journey to reclaim his music has been longer, quieter, and more complicated.

In 1963, McCartney and John Lennon signed away their publishing rights to a company called Northern Songs. At the time, they were young, unknown, and desperate for airplay. The deal would haunt them for decades. Their catalog passed through multiple hands, including ATV Music, then Michael Jackson, and eventually Sony/ATV. Along the way, McCartney had multiple opportunities to buy it back and didn't, sometimes because of money, sometimes out of concern for how it would appear to the Lennon estate.

In 2017, McCartney filed a federal lawsuit against Sony/ATV to assert his right to reclaim ownership under U.S. termination laws. Rather than risk a damaging courtroom precedent, Sony settled. Since then, McCartney has been quietly reclaiming the U.S. publishing rights to his songs one by one, starting with early hits like "Love Me Do." By 2026, virtually the entire U.S. share of the Lennon, McCartney catalog will be back in the hands of the songwriters and their estates.

Globally, however, Sony still controls most of the Beatles catalog. And unlike Victor Willis, McCartney didn't win full ownership — he negotiated it back slowly, piece by piece.

Why Are "Masters" So Valuable?

At the heart of Salt-N-Pepa's lawsuit is a fight over the ownership of their masters — a term that refers to the original sound recordings of a song or album. Whoever owns the masters controls how the music is licensed, streamed, sampled, or synced in TV, film, and commercials. It's the foundation of long-term royalties and passive income in the music business.

Historically, record labels have owned the masters by default, especially in deals signed by young or unproven artists. But as legacy catalogs become increasingly valuable in the age of streaming and sync licensing, ownership of masters has become one of the most lucrative assets in the entertainment industry.

In the last few years alone, there have been a number of massive catalog deals:

• In 2021, Bob Dylan sold his master recordings to Sony for an estimated $200 million (after selling his publishing rights separately for around $300 million).
• Bruce Springsteen sold both his publishing and masters to Sony for a combined $500 million in 2021.
• Justin Bieber sold his publishing and neighboring rights to Hipgnosis for a reported $200 million in 2023.
• Dr. Dre sold a portion of his music income stream — including royalties from The Chronic — in a deal reportedly worth $200 million.

The value of a catalog typically depends on how much income it generates annually. Buyers often use a multiple — sometimes 10x to 20x annual earnings — to estimate what a collection of masters is worth.

What Could Salt-N-Pepa's Masters Be Worth?

While Salt-N-Pepa's catalog doesn't rival the billion-dollar portfolios of Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen, it includes some of the most iconic and enduring hits in hip-hop history — "Push It," "Shoop," "Whatta Man," and "Let's Talk About Sex." These songs have been streamed billions of times, featured in countless commercials and films, and remain cultural staples nearly four decades after their release.

If the masters are generating $500,000 to $1 million per year, which is a reasonable floor given their popularity, sync potential, and global streaming audience, the catalog could be valued between $7 million and $20 million, using standard industry multiples of 12x to 20x annual revenue. That estimate could go even higher if there's significant interest from buyers seeking culturally resonant, evergreen catalogs with cross-generational appeal.

In short, Salt-N-Pepa aren't just fighting for control of their sound — they're fighting for a multi-million-dollar asset that could fund their families and legacies for generations.