Salt-N-Pepa vs. UMG | Matt Connarton Unleashed

0:00 Speaker 1: We weren't gonna talk, so I kind of had a

0:02 Speaker 1: different idea of what we're going to talk about this segment.

0:06 Speaker 1: But then I realized something. So you had mentioned, Jenny,

0:10 Speaker 1: there's new information regarding this lawsuit Salt and Pepa versus

0:16 Speaker 1: UMG Universal Music Group, And oh, I just got a

0:20 Speaker 1: text message. By the way, Oh the stiff Tones are here.

0:23 Speaker 2: I show.

0:25 Speaker 1: Our our three guests has arrived, so Jenny's going to

0:28 Speaker 1: go let them in. But yeah, Universal disputes Salt and

0:32 Speaker 1: Pepa's termination rights claim says the rappers never transferred any

0:36 Speaker 1: recording rights to their label. The reason I decided I

0:40 Speaker 1: wanted to pivot to this story is because UMG Universal

0:44 Speaker 1: Music Group seems to come up a lot on the show,

0:47 Speaker 1: because it seems like Universal Music Group is constantly either

0:50 Speaker 1: being sued or countersuing somebody. I remember months ago we

0:54 Speaker 1: talked about the Olympiscuit lawsuit against UMG. There's always something

1:00 Speaker 1: with UMG. Always seems to be something sketchy going on. Obviously,

1:04 Speaker 1: the point of view that we come from with this

1:06 Speaker 1: show is we always will advocate and support artists and

1:10 Speaker 1: the rights of artists, and it is not an unusual

1:16 Speaker 1: or rare tale to hear about artists getting screwed over

1:20 Speaker 1: in the music industry, and very often it happens at

1:23 Speaker 1: the hands of these big labels and Universal Music Group.

1:29 Speaker 1: If you are gauging this based on the number of

1:32 Speaker 1: lawsuits involving UMG, they might be the number one offenders

1:36 Speaker 1: in terms of screwing over the artists that they represent. Now,

1:40 Speaker 1: I understand there's two sides to every story, or maybe three.

1:43 Speaker 1: You know, they say this three sides yours mind and

1:45 Speaker 1: the truth, and these things are not always as simple

1:49 Speaker 1: as they might appear. But again, you know, on this show,

1:51 Speaker 1: we have a specific point of view. This is a

1:53 Speaker 1: very independent, artist centric radio show, so we have a

2:00 Speaker 1: point of view that we will always defend and stick

2:02 Speaker 1: up for artists and advocate for artists. And Universal Music

2:05 Speaker 1: Group certainly doesn't need our help and support. So so

2:09 Speaker 1: this is this is an update. This just happened. This

2:12 Speaker 1: just went up on well this this actually went up

2:15 Speaker 1: on a number of places Billboard, dot com and various sites.

2:18 Speaker 1: But this just went up yesterday, so it says here.

2:20 Speaker 1: Earlier this year, Assault and PEPA sued UMG, claiming that

2:25 Speaker 1: the major label was refusing to allow them to reclaim

2:28 Speaker 1: the rights to their nineteen eighties recordings. Even though copyright

2:32 Speaker 1: law allows them to terminate any transfer of rights after

2:36 Speaker 1: thirty five years, the major now says there was never

2:39 Speaker 1: any transfer of rights to terminate. So this gets into

2:44 Speaker 1: the weeds a little bit. But because again sometimes artists,

2:48 Speaker 1: major artists, this happens, I mean, it can happen with

2:51 Speaker 1: any artists at any level. But you know, and again

2:55 Speaker 1: people outside the industry might not know this. But you know,

2:58 Speaker 1: just because you music and put music out, release music,

3:02 Speaker 1: doesn't mean you own the rights to it. And there's

3:04 Speaker 1: you know, there's publishing rights, and there's your masters, your

3:06 Speaker 1: master recordings, and various things. And depending on what kind

3:11 Speaker 1: of a contract you have, your your label might own

3:14 Speaker 1: the rights to your publishing. They might own the rights

3:16 Speaker 1: to your masters. Sometimes artists will go and you know,

3:20 Speaker 1: Taylor Swift, as a means of reclaiming the rights to

3:26 Speaker 1: her material, actually went and re recorded everything. And now,

3:30 Speaker 1: who was somebody just bought back their whole catalog. I

3:33 Speaker 1: thought that was her.

3:33 Speaker 2: I thought it was Taylor Swift that bought back their

3:35 Speaker 2: whole catalgy.

3:35 Speaker 1: I think she was. She did something where but it

3:38 Speaker 1: involved her re recording oh for her music. Yeah, so

3:44 Speaker 1: that way she doesn't need the original masters. She just

3:46 Speaker 1: re recorded everything. Def Leppard did something similar like I

3:51 Speaker 1: don't know ten fifteen years ago, but that had something

3:54 Speaker 1: to do with iTunes and that was a complicated thing.

3:58 Speaker 1: But so this is what it says here. This is

4:00 Speaker 1: the update. Universal Music has asked a US court to

4:04 Speaker 1: dismiss the termination rights lawsuit filed against it by rap

4:08 Speaker 1: duo Salt and Pepa. The Major says that while US

4:12 Speaker 1: copyright law allows creators to terminate a transfer of rights

4:15 Speaker 1: or grant of rights after thirty five years, Salt and

4:19 Speaker 1: Peppa never actually granted any rights in their nineteen eighties

4:23 Speaker 1: record deals, which means there's nothing to terminate now. The

4:27 Speaker 1: relevant agreements under which Salt and Peppa's recordings were created

4:30 Speaker 1: quote contain no grant of copyright rights unquote from the rappers.

4:37 Speaker 1: A new legal filing from The Major claims a producer

4:40 Speaker 1: the duo worked with did grant some rights in one arrangement.

4:44 Speaker 1: I'm sorry, in one agreement, but neither Salt nor Pepa

4:49 Speaker 1: were directly involved in that part of the deal and

4:52 Speaker 1: a grant of rights. Universal adds, as quote a fundamental

4:55 Speaker 1: requirement of the copyright ex termination provisions unquote. That fact,

4:59 Speaker 1: it says, was confirmed in a previous termination rights legal

5:02 Speaker 1: battle involving Universal, in which the litigious artists were represented

5:06 Speaker 1: by the same lawyers as Salt and Peppa. Those attorneys

5:10 Speaker 1: may now have quote chosen to ignore that decision unquote,

5:13 Speaker 1: it says, but there is still quote no basis for

5:16 Speaker 1: any different result here. Quote. Unsurprisingly, Salt and Peppa an

5:20 Speaker 1: are not impressed with Universal's arguments, a spokesperson told Billboard.

5:24 Speaker 1: Quote the Copyright Act was designed to give artists a

5:27 Speaker 1: chance to reclaim ownership of their work, which is precisely

5:30 Speaker 1: what Salt and Peppa have been attempting to do, and

5:33 Speaker 1: UMG continues to resist unquote the major's arguments UMG, the

5:39 Speaker 1: spokesperson added, quote are just what we expected, an effort

5:43 Speaker 1: to avoid addressing the core issues facing Salt and Peppa

5:47 Speaker 1: and so many other artists in these circumstances. But we

5:50 Speaker 1: remain confident that the facts and the law are on

5:52 Speaker 1: our side. Unquote. Salt and Peppa real names Cheryl James

5:57 Speaker 1: and Sandra Denton sued Universe in May after it knocked

6:02 Speaker 1: back the duo's efforts to reclaim ownership of their nineteen

6:05 Speaker 1: eighties albums by exercising the termination right. At the time,

6:10 Speaker 1: they said that the major was employing heavy handed tactics

6:13 Speaker 1: which might work on lesser known artists, but Salt and

6:16 Speaker 1: Pepa quote would not tolerate any disrespect from UMG unquote.

6:22 Speaker 1: It is true there are some complications relating to the

6:25 Speaker 1: termination right under US law, which in music apply more

6:28 Speaker 1: on the recording side than with publishing contracts. If an

6:32 Speaker 1: artist is employed. Okay, now this gets into the weeds,

6:35 Speaker 1: but this is important in order for us to understand

6:38 Speaker 1: what's happening here. So if an artist is employed by

6:42 Speaker 1: a label on a work for higher basis, then the

6:46 Speaker 1: label owns the copyright in the recordings by default, so

6:50 Speaker 1: there is no transfer of rights. And by the way,

6:52 Speaker 1: so that's no different than any employer that you work

6:56 Speaker 1: for or if you're freelancing, but you know, you sign

7:00 Speaker 1: some sort of contract that might say this your work

7:03 Speaker 1: product for that employer, you don't own it. Your employer

7:06 Speaker 1: owns it. So in theory, anything that you create, develop,

7:09 Speaker 1: et cetera for that employer like you, you don't get

7:13 Speaker 1: to take that with you. If it's some sort of

7:15 Speaker 1: creative work that's owned by your employer. You created it

7:18 Speaker 1: under their direction, and you know, we can have arguments

7:21 Speaker 1: about whether that's fair or not, or whether it depends

7:25 Speaker 1: on the situation, which it probably does, whether it's fair

7:27 Speaker 1: or not, et cetera. But but that's basically it's it's

7:29 Speaker 1: no different than that. So if you're employed by a

7:32 Speaker 1: label doing whatever, you're a recording artist, or you're a producer,

7:37 Speaker 1: or you're you work in a and R or I

7:39 Speaker 1: don't even know what jobs exist at at these labels

7:42 Speaker 1: anymore because everything's changed so much. But but uh, I mean,

7:47 Speaker 1: I did some work for Artemis Records, but that was

7:49 Speaker 1: a long time ago, so everything's different now. But anyway,

7:54 Speaker 1: but the point being, you know that that label is

7:58 Speaker 1: most likely going to you own whatever you create for

8:02 Speaker 1: that label. Okay, so things again, going back to the article,

8:06 Speaker 1: things also get complicated where artists do deals with producers

8:10 Speaker 1: and then producers do deals with labels. So you're the artist,

8:15 Speaker 1: you have a deal with your producer, and your deal

8:19 Speaker 1: with your producer is your deal, but they've got another deal.

8:24 Speaker 1: And again, this happens. This doesn't just happen in the

8:27 Speaker 1: music industry. This can happen in any industry, any type

8:30 Speaker 1: of business situation. You've got to deal with somebody and

8:33 Speaker 1: that's your deal with that entity. But that entity also

8:36 Speaker 1: they have their own deal with somebody that might affect

8:38 Speaker 1: your deal in ways that you don't know because you

8:41 Speaker 1: don't know about the other deal and you can't anticipate

8:43 Speaker 1: how that's going to affect you.

8:45 Speaker 2: And this is all confusing to you. What is it

8:49 Speaker 2: like for the artists?

8:50 Speaker 1: You know what it reminds me of. It reminds me

8:51 Speaker 1: of like when I was a kid, if like I

8:55 Speaker 1: had a friend, and this is probably something that's happened

8:57 Speaker 1: to people. I think people will find this example where

9:00 Speaker 1: but I remember this happening to me once, Like like

9:03 Speaker 1: a friend borrows a dollar from me because so they

9:06 Speaker 1: can get something like a milk with their lunch or something.

9:09 Speaker 1: Right Like when I'm a kid that borrows a dollar

9:12 Speaker 1: from me, and then they tell me they're gonna pay

9:15 Speaker 1: me back. But then when I go to collect, when

9:17 Speaker 1: they say, oh, yeah, i'll pay you back tomorrow, and

9:18 Speaker 1: then I go to them tomorrow and they say, oh yeah,

9:24 Speaker 1: I don't owe you that because somebody else borrowed a

9:28 Speaker 1: dollar from me so now they owe you that dollar,

9:31 Speaker 1: you know what I mean? Yes, like I'm not paying

9:34 Speaker 1: you back. No, no, you have to go get the

9:35 Speaker 1: dollar from this other person who I loan money to.

9:38 Speaker 1: Now they owe you the money, which is such a

9:41 Speaker 1: BS way to do things. But you know that type

9:43 Speaker 1: of thing would happen. And then, of course, and then

9:45 Speaker 1: we don't know what happens next. Right, you go to

9:47 Speaker 1: the person and then they say, what why are you

9:49 Speaker 1: trying to get a dollar for me? I don't know

9:51 Speaker 1: you a dollar? Why Why does your deal with this

9:54 Speaker 1: person affect me? And so forth? And you know, anyway,

10:00 Speaker 1: Universal argues that these things apply in this case in

10:04 Speaker 1: legal It's legal filing runs through the complicated series of

10:09 Speaker 1: deals between James and Denton and producer Herbie Azor, between

10:15 Speaker 1: the producer and Next Plateau Records, and between Next Plateau

10:20 Speaker 1: Records and London Records, which is now part of Universal. See,

10:24 Speaker 1: these things get very, very very complicated by the way.

10:28 Speaker 1: This is an example too, because things get so complicated.

10:31 Speaker 1: Remember when Limp Biscuits sued and that's ongoing. I believe

10:38 Speaker 1: their lawsuit against UMG the I forget her name now

10:44 Speaker 1: her actual name, but her YouTube channel is top music attorney,

10:47 Speaker 1: and she talks about all this stuff, and I'm sure

10:49 Speaker 1: she has stuff on her YouTube channel. I haven't looked

10:50 Speaker 1: at it recently. I'm sure she has stuff on her

10:52 Speaker 1: YouTube channel about this. She's an entertainment lawyer with a

10:55 Speaker 1: very successful YouTube channel. And she says that UMG does

11:00 Speaker 1: something that is often referred to as spaghetti accounting, where

11:04 Speaker 1: the accounting becomes so complicated that you can't even audit

11:08 Speaker 1: it because it's so and it's and it's by design,

11:14 Speaker 1: it's it's this is done intentionally so that the label

11:18 Speaker 1: doesn't have to pay you anything because they say, no,

11:20 Speaker 1: we don't owe you anything. Uh we we still you know,

11:24 Speaker 1: there's still recruitment. You haven't your project, your album, whatever,

11:28 Speaker 1: hasn't made enough money, hasn't generated enough revenue, so we

11:31 Speaker 1: don't owe you anything because you haven't your your recruitment

11:35 Speaker 1: has not yet been fulfilled. And then you say, okay, well,

11:37 Speaker 1: our lawyers are going to audit our account and then

11:39 Speaker 1: it's very difficult to do that because everything's a mess anyway,

11:43 Speaker 1: but it's but it's an intentional mess.

11:45 Speaker 2: That's one of the things that's in the Janees addiction

11:47 Speaker 2: lawsuit is that there was money fronted to them for

11:50 Speaker 2: the tour ah and now they got to give it

11:53 Speaker 2: or for the album. The promised an album going to happen,

11:58 Speaker 2: So now all that money has to be given that yep, yeah, yeah,

12:04 Speaker 2: So her name is Miss Crystal with a King.

12:06 Speaker 1: Oh, Miss Crystal, thank you.

12:08 Speaker 2: Yes, the number one music business school for artists. I

12:11 Speaker 2: never knew this existed.

12:12 Speaker 1: Oh yeah, no, Miss Crystal. She has a lot of

12:14 Speaker 1: great content. Again, it's kind of stuff.

12:16 Speaker 2: It's online classes and everything. We should get her on

12:18 Speaker 2: if we can.

12:18 Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's a great idea. Yeah, I'd love to

12:20 Speaker 1: have her on. Yeah. And she's again if you really

12:22 Speaker 1: want to get into the weeds with this stuff, she's

12:25 Speaker 1: a Her YouTube channel is great and she explains things

12:28 Speaker 1: in a way that, you know, someone like me, I'm

12:32 Speaker 1: not an attorney. I have no legal training of any kind.

12:34 Speaker 1: But she explains it in a way that it goes

12:36 Speaker 1: very in depth, so I can I can understand because

12:40 Speaker 1: I'm you know, I like that kind of stuff. I'm

12:42 Speaker 1: obviously very interested in it, but without it getting so

12:46 Speaker 1: far advanced with legal lees that I can't comprehend it,

12:49 Speaker 1: you know what I mean exactly? So that's why I

12:51 Speaker 1: recommend her if you're interested in this kind of thing,

12:53 Speaker 1: you know, obviously, I mean I never had any interest

12:55 Speaker 1: in becoming an attorney, but if I had gotten to

12:57 Speaker 1: law school, my goal probably would have been to deal

13:00 Speaker 1: with contract law, and I'd probably would be an entertainment lawyer.

13:04 Speaker 1: And I find trademark law very interesting, and anything to

13:09 Speaker 1: do with copyrights and oh yeah, intellectual property, all of

13:13 Speaker 1: that's fascinating to me. So that's probably the kind of

13:16 Speaker 1: law had I taken that path, that I would be practicing.

13:19 Speaker 1: But yeah, so I do recommend her YouTube channel top

13:22 Speaker 1: Music Attorney on. Yeah, it's pretty in depth, and I'm

13:26 Speaker 1: sure she has stuff about this lawsuit on there. A

13:30 Speaker 1: little bit more to this, it says, again, this is

13:32 Speaker 1: from the article. The whole dispute pretty much swings on

13:37 Speaker 1: one line in a nineteen eighty six agreement between James

13:41 Speaker 1: and Denton and Azor's business, which says that his production

13:45 Speaker 1: company quote shall be the sole and exclusive owner of

13:49 Speaker 1: any and all rights, title, and or interest in and

13:54 Speaker 1: to the master recordings recorded here under, including but not

13:57 Speaker 1: limited to the worldwide sound copyrights there and and the

14:01 Speaker 1: renewal rights thereof unquote.

14:04 Speaker 2: I think we should pass a law that says everything

14:05 Speaker 2: has to be written in English.

14:08 Speaker 1: Well, that's that's that's clear if you break it down,

14:11 Speaker 1: I mean basically, I mean I can well, yeah, but

14:15 Speaker 1: I can. But we can sum that up right. In

14:16 Speaker 1: other words, Azor's business owns everything, and that's what that

14:19 Speaker 1: That's what that line says, that owns everything.

14:21 Speaker 2: That you are their slave, isn't that That's why Prince

14:23 Speaker 2: wrote slave across his cheek when he was fighting.

14:26 Speaker 1: With his record. And that's exactly the kind of thing

14:29 Speaker 1: that if you have a really good entertainment lawyer and

14:32 Speaker 1: and you're presented with a contract like that, your entertainment

14:35 Speaker 1: lawyer is going to say to you, I don't think

14:37 Speaker 1: you should sign this. So it says here. The question

14:41 Speaker 1: is was that a simple statement of fact confirming Universal's

14:45 Speaker 1: view that Azor's company was the default owner of the

14:48 Speaker 1: sound recording copyrights created under the deal, or was it,

14:52 Speaker 1: in fact a transfer of copyrights from the rappers to

14:54 Speaker 1: the producer. Universal argues that other terms in the same

14:58 Speaker 1: deal relating to other rights such as name and likeness rights,

15:03 Speaker 1: include explicit language regarding the transfer of rights. The fact

15:07 Speaker 1: that explicit language isn't that crucial isn't in that crucial

15:12 Speaker 1: term about the recording rights, means no transfer took place.

15:15 Speaker 1: It adds, we will see how the court now deals

15:18 Speaker 1: with these arguments. If the judge does ultimately rule against Universal,

15:22 Speaker 1: it has a second argument already lined up that some

15:25 Speaker 1: of the key recordings under dispute are remixes. See that

15:30 Speaker 1: gets complicated, and the termination right doesn't apply to so

15:33 Speaker 1: called derivative works, so anything they.

15:37 Speaker 2: Can do to rip off the artists.

15:40 Speaker 1: So even if James and Denton had transferred rights back

15:43 Speaker 1: in the nineteen eighties, the termination right still wouldn't apply

15:47 Speaker 1: to remixes organized by their labels while those labels were

15:51 Speaker 1: in control of the main copyright. The second argument may

15:54 Speaker 1: or may not be relevant in this dispute, but it

15:56 Speaker 1: could nevertheless be a cause of concern for other artists

15:59 Speaker 1: in those genres where remixes are common and who are

16:02 Speaker 1: looking to exercise the termination right, especially where it's a

16:06 Speaker 1: remix that proved to be the biggest hit.

16:10 Speaker 2: Mm hmm, that's our I didn't even think about that.

16:13 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, oh yeah. It gets It gets very complicated.

16:17 Speaker 1: It gets very complicated.