Speaker 1: We weren't gonna talk, so I kind of had a
different idea of what we're going to talk about this segment.
But then I realized something. So you had mentioned, Jenny,
there's new information regarding this lawsuit Salt and Pepa versus
UMG Universal Music Group, And oh, I just got a
text message. By the way, Oh the stiff Tones are here.
Speaker 2: I show.
Speaker 1: Our our three guests has arrived, so Jenny's going to
go let them in. But yeah, Universal disputes Salt and
Pepa's termination rights claim says the rappers never transferred any
recording rights to their label. The reason I decided I
wanted to pivot to this story is because UMG Universal
Music Group seems to come up a lot on the show,
because it seems like Universal Music Group is constantly either
being sued or countersuing somebody. I remember months ago we
talked about the Olympiscuit lawsuit against UMG. There's always something
with UMG. Always seems to be something sketchy going on. Obviously,
the point of view that we come from with this
show is we always will advocate and support artists and
the rights of artists, and it is not an unusual
or rare tale to hear about artists getting screwed over
in the music industry, and very often it happens at
the hands of these big labels and Universal Music Group.
If you are gauging this based on the number of
lawsuits involving UMG, they might be the number one offenders
in terms of screwing over the artists that they represent. Now,
I understand there's two sides to every story, or maybe three.
You know, they say this three sides yours mind and
the truth, and these things are not always as simple
as they might appear. But again, you know, on this show,
we have a specific point of view. This is a
very independent, artist centric radio show, so we have a
point of view that we will always defend and stick
up for artists and advocate for artists. And Universal Music
Group certainly doesn't need our help and support. So so
this is this is an update. This just happened. This
just went up on well this this actually went up
on a number of places Billboard, dot com and various sites.
But this just went up yesterday, so it says here.
Earlier this year, Assault and PEPA sued UMG, claiming that
the major label was refusing to allow them to reclaim
the rights to their nineteen eighties recordings. Even though copyright
law allows them to terminate any transfer of rights after
thirty five years, the major now says there was never
any transfer of rights to terminate. So this gets into
the weeds a little bit. But because again sometimes artists,
major artists, this happens, I mean, it can happen with
any artists at any level. But you know, and again
people outside the industry might not know this. But you know,
just because you music and put music out, release music,
doesn't mean you own the rights to it. And there's
you know, there's publishing rights, and there's your masters, your
master recordings, and various things. And depending on what kind
of a contract you have, your your label might own
the rights to your publishing. They might own the rights
to your masters. Sometimes artists will go and you know,
Taylor Swift, as a means of reclaiming the rights to
her material, actually went and re recorded everything. And now,
who was somebody just bought back their whole catalog. I
thought that was her.
Speaker 2: I thought it was Taylor Swift that bought back their
whole catalgy.
Speaker 1: I think she was. She did something where but it
involved her re recording oh for her music. Yeah, so
that way she doesn't need the original masters. She just
re recorded everything. Def Leppard did something similar like I
don't know ten fifteen years ago, but that had something
to do with iTunes and that was a complicated thing.
But so this is what it says here. This is
the update. Universal Music has asked a US court to
dismiss the termination rights lawsuit filed against it by rap
duo Salt and Pepa. The Major says that while US
copyright law allows creators to terminate a transfer of rights
or grant of rights after thirty five years, Salt and
Peppa never actually granted any rights in their nineteen eighties
record deals, which means there's nothing to terminate now. The
relevant agreements under which Salt and Peppa's recordings were created
quote contain no grant of copyright rights unquote from the rappers.
A new legal filing from The Major claims a producer
the duo worked with did grant some rights in one arrangement.
I'm sorry, in one agreement, but neither Salt nor Pepa
were directly involved in that part of the deal and
a grant of rights. Universal adds, as quote a fundamental
requirement of the copyright ex termination provisions unquote. That fact,
it says, was confirmed in a previous termination rights legal
battle involving Universal, in which the litigious artists were represented
by the same lawyers as Salt and Peppa. Those attorneys
may now have quote chosen to ignore that decision unquote,
it says, but there is still quote no basis for
any different result here. Quote. Unsurprisingly, Salt and Peppa an
are not impressed with Universal's arguments, a spokesperson told Billboard.
Quote the Copyright Act was designed to give artists a
chance to reclaim ownership of their work, which is precisely
what Salt and Peppa have been attempting to do, and
UMG continues to resist unquote the major's arguments UMG, the
spokesperson added, quote are just what we expected, an effort
to avoid addressing the core issues facing Salt and Peppa
and so many other artists in these circumstances. But we
remain confident that the facts and the law are on
our side. Unquote. Salt and Peppa real names Cheryl James
and Sandra Denton sued Universe in May after it knocked
back the duo's efforts to reclaim ownership of their nineteen
eighties albums by exercising the termination right. At the time,
they said that the major was employing heavy handed tactics
which might work on lesser known artists, but Salt and
Pepa quote would not tolerate any disrespect from UMG unquote.
It is true there are some complications relating to the
termination right under US law, which in music apply more
on the recording side than with publishing contracts. If an
artist is employed. Okay, now this gets into the weeds,
but this is important in order for us to understand
what's happening here. So if an artist is employed by
a label on a work for higher basis, then the
label owns the copyright in the recordings by default, so
there is no transfer of rights. And by the way,
so that's no different than any employer that you work
for or if you're freelancing, but you know, you sign
some sort of contract that might say this your work
product for that employer, you don't own it. Your employer
owns it. So in theory, anything that you create, develop,
et cetera for that employer like you, you don't get
to take that with you. If it's some sort of
creative work that's owned by your employer. You created it
under their direction, and you know, we can have arguments
about whether that's fair or not, or whether it depends
on the situation, which it probably does, whether it's fair
or not, et cetera. But but that's basically it's it's
no different than that. So if you're employed by a
label doing whatever, you're a recording artist, or you're a producer,
or you're you work in a and R or I
don't even know what jobs exist at at these labels
anymore because everything's changed so much. But but uh, I mean,
I did some work for Artemis Records, but that was
a long time ago, so everything's different now. But anyway,
but the point being, you know that that label is
most likely going to you own whatever you create for
that label. Okay, so things again, going back to the article,
things also get complicated where artists do deals with producers
and then producers do deals with labels. So you're the artist,
you have a deal with your producer, and your deal
with your producer is your deal, but they've got another deal.
And again, this happens. This doesn't just happen in the
music industry. This can happen in any industry, any type
of business situation. You've got to deal with somebody and
that's your deal with that entity. But that entity also
they have their own deal with somebody that might affect
your deal in ways that you don't know because you
don't know about the other deal and you can't anticipate
how that's going to affect you.
Speaker 2: And this is all confusing to you. What is it
like for the artists?
Speaker 1: You know what it reminds me of. It reminds me
of like when I was a kid, if like I
had a friend, and this is probably something that's happened
to people. I think people will find this example where
but I remember this happening to me once, Like like
a friend borrows a dollar from me because so they
can get something like a milk with their lunch or something.
Right Like when I'm a kid that borrows a dollar
from me, and then they tell me they're gonna pay
me back. But then when I go to collect, when
they say, oh, yeah, i'll pay you back tomorrow, and
then I go to them tomorrow and they say, oh yeah,
I don't owe you that because somebody else borrowed a
dollar from me so now they owe you that dollar,
you know what I mean? Yes, like I'm not paying
you back. No, no, you have to go get the
dollar from this other person who I loan money to.
Now they owe you the money, which is such a
BS way to do things. But you know that type
of thing would happen. And then, of course, and then
we don't know what happens next. Right, you go to
the person and then they say, what why are you
trying to get a dollar for me? I don't know
you a dollar? Why Why does your deal with this
person affect me? And so forth? And you know, anyway,
Universal argues that these things apply in this case in
legal It's legal filing runs through the complicated series of
deals between James and Denton and producer Herbie Azor, between
the producer and Next Plateau Records, and between Next Plateau
Records and London Records, which is now part of Universal. See,
these things get very, very very complicated by the way.
This is an example too, because things get so complicated.
Remember when Limp Biscuits sued and that's ongoing. I believe
their lawsuit against UMG the I forget her name now
her actual name, but her YouTube channel is top music attorney,
and she talks about all this stuff, and I'm sure
she has stuff on her YouTube channel. I haven't looked
at it recently. I'm sure she has stuff on her
YouTube channel about this. She's an entertainment lawyer with a
very successful YouTube channel. And she says that UMG does
something that is often referred to as spaghetti accounting, where
the accounting becomes so complicated that you can't even audit
it because it's so and it's and it's by design,
it's it's this is done intentionally so that the label
doesn't have to pay you anything because they say, no,
we don't owe you anything. Uh we we still you know,
there's still recruitment. You haven't your project, your album, whatever,
hasn't made enough money, hasn't generated enough revenue, so we
don't owe you anything because you haven't your your recruitment
has not yet been fulfilled. And then you say, okay, well,
our lawyers are going to audit our account and then
it's very difficult to do that because everything's a mess anyway,
but it's but it's an intentional mess.
Speaker 2: That's one of the things that's in the Janees addiction
lawsuit is that there was money fronted to them for
the tour ah and now they got to give it
or for the album. The promised an album going to happen,
So now all that money has to be given that yep, yeah, yeah,
So her name is Miss Crystal with a King.
Speaker 1: Oh, Miss Crystal, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yes, the number one music business school for artists. I
never knew this existed.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, no, Miss Crystal. She has a lot of
great content. Again, it's kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: It's online classes and everything. We should get her on
if we can.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's a great idea. Yeah, I'd love to
have her on. Yeah. And she's again if you really
want to get into the weeds with this stuff, she's
a Her YouTube channel is great and she explains things
in a way that, you know, someone like me, I'm
not an attorney. I have no legal training of any kind.
But she explains it in a way that it goes
very in depth, so I can I can understand because
I'm you know, I like that kind of stuff. I'm
obviously very interested in it, but without it getting so
far advanced with legal lees that I can't comprehend it,
you know what I mean exactly? So that's why I
recommend her if you're interested in this kind of thing,
you know, obviously, I mean I never had any interest
in becoming an attorney, but if I had gotten to
law school, my goal probably would have been to deal
with contract law, and I'd probably would be an entertainment lawyer.
And I find trademark law very interesting, and anything to
do with copyrights and oh yeah, intellectual property, all of
that's fascinating to me. So that's probably the kind of
law had I taken that path, that I would be practicing.
But yeah, so I do recommend her YouTube channel top
Music Attorney on. Yeah, it's pretty in depth, and I'm
sure she has stuff about this lawsuit on there. A
little bit more to this, it says, again, this is
from the article. The whole dispute pretty much swings on
one line in a nineteen eighty six agreement between James
and Denton and Azor's business, which says that his production
company quote shall be the sole and exclusive owner of
any and all rights, title, and or interest in and
to the master recordings recorded here under, including but not
limited to the worldwide sound copyrights there and and the
renewal rights thereof unquote.
Speaker 2: I think we should pass a law that says everything
has to be written in English.
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's that's clear if you break it down,
I mean basically, I mean I can well, yeah, but
I can. But we can sum that up right. In
other words, Azor's business owns everything, and that's what that
That's what that line says, that owns everything.
Speaker 2: That you are their slave, isn't that That's why Prince
wrote slave across his cheek when he was fighting.
Speaker 1: With his record. And that's exactly the kind of thing
that if you have a really good entertainment lawyer and
and you're presented with a contract like that, your entertainment
lawyer is going to say to you, I don't think
you should sign this. So it says here. The question
is was that a simple statement of fact confirming Universal's
view that Azor's company was the default owner of the
sound recording copyrights created under the deal, or was it,
in fact a transfer of copyrights from the rappers to
the producer. Universal argues that other terms in the same
deal relating to other rights such as name and likeness rights,
include explicit language regarding the transfer of rights. The fact
that explicit language isn't that crucial isn't in that crucial
term about the recording rights, means no transfer took place.
It adds, we will see how the court now deals
with these arguments. If the judge does ultimately rule against Universal,
it has a second argument already lined up that some
of the key recordings under dispute are remixes. See that
gets complicated, and the termination right doesn't apply to so
called derivative works, so anything they.
Speaker 2: Can do to rip off the artists.
Speaker 1: So even if James and Denton had transferred rights back
in the nineteen eighties, the termination right still wouldn't apply
to remixes organized by their labels while those labels were
in control of the main copyright. The second argument may
or may not be relevant in this dispute, but it
could nevertheless be a cause of concern for other artists
in those genres where remixes are common and who are
looking to exercise the termination right, especially where it's a
remix that proved to be the biggest hit.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm, that's our I didn't even think about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, oh yeah. It gets It gets very complicated.
It gets very complicated.