Section 203 and Hip‑Hop History

Today we're breaking down a copyright decision out of the Southern District of New York. On January 8, 2026, the court granted Universal Music Group’s motion to dismiss in a case brought by hip‑hop legends Salt‑N‑Pepa. 

Read the full article

• Universal Music Group’s Recent Success in Blocking Section 203 Termination Rights Could Pose a Threat to Artists’ Abilities to Reclaim Sound Recording Rights in the Future.

About the authors

• William T. Ramsey
• Mariam N. Stockton
• Dani Bhadare-Valente 

Transcript

Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.

With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.

Host 1:

Welcome back, everyone. Today we're breaking down a copyright decision out of the Southern District of New York. On January 8, 2026, the court granted Universal Music Group’s motion to dismiss in a case brought by hip‑hop legends Salt‑N‑Pepa.

Host 2:

Yeah, and this ruling could go beyond just this case. It essentially blocks Salt‑N‑Pepa from using Section 203 of the Copyright Act to terminate Universal’s rights in their sound recordings. And the court’s reasoning has major implications for artists trying to reclaim their masters.

Host 1:

So here’s what happened. Back in March 2022, Salt‑N‑Pepa filed Notices of Termination, basically saying, “We want our copyright rights back.” Universal responded with counter‑notices arguing the group never actually owned the copyrights in the first place.

Host 2:

Then in May 2025, the group sued Universal, asking the court to confirm that their Notices of Termination were valid. Universal fired back, saying: you can’t terminate something you never owned, and in fact, the recordings were works made for hire anyway.

Host 1:

Universal’s main point was simple: under the original 1986 contract with NITA—its predecessor label—Salt‑N‑Pepa didn’t own the copyrights when the works were created. If they never owned them, they couldn’t transfer them, and if they never transferred them, there’s nothing to terminate under Section 203.

Host 2:

And as a backup, Universal argued that the recordings were “works made for hire,” which would make the label the legal author under copyright law. That would make termination rights impossible too.

Host 1:

The court sided with Universal, focusing heavily on the wording of the 1986 agreement. The contract said NITA “shall be the exclusive and sole owner” of the sound recordings.

Host 2:

And that verb tense—“shall be”—turned out to be crucial. The court emphasized that for a transfer to be terminable later, the artist has to make a present grant of rights. But the contract didn’t say NITA “is” or “hereby becomes” the owner—it said NITA shall be the owner.

Host 1:

So instead of signaling a transfer from the artist to the label, the language showed that the label was the owner from the start. The court essentially concluded Salt‑N‑Pepa never held the copyright rights at all.

Host 2:

But, here’s another fact of the case: the court didn’t formally rule that the sound recordings were works made for hire—but it strongly hinted that they were.

Host 1:

That’s surprising, because settled law says that sound recordings, by themselves, rarely qualify as works made for hire unless very specific statutory conditions are met. So the court’s suggestion raised some eyebrows.

Host 2:

If that interpretation sticks on appeal, it could tilt the landscape toward labels in future disputes.

Host 1:

Assuming Universal ultimately prevails, this decision makes it much tougher for artists to reclaim rights in their master recordings. It shows how important contract language is, especially around ownership and work‑made‑for‑hire status.

Host 2:

And it highlights why artists need to protect themselves on three points. One, making sure contracts include a clear, present transfer of rights, two, getting the label to acknowledge in writing that Section 203 termination rights can apply, and three, pushing for an express statement that the artist is not an employee and the work is not made for hire.

Host 1:

Salt‑N‑Pepa has already said they plan to appeal, so this story isn’t over. But the district court’s decision is a major win for Universal. And a warning to artists about the long‑term impact of early contracts.

Host 2:

It’s a reminder that even a single verb tense can change decades of copyright rights, and we’ll be watching the appeal closely.

Host 1:

Thanks for joining us on this episode of Womble Perspectives for a deep dive into music and IP law. And if you found this episode informative, don’t forget to subscribe and share.

Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.

Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.