Termination Rights: Section 203 of the Copyright Act

Termination rights come from Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Congress gave creators this right so that those who signed away their rights early in their careers, often with little leverage, get a second chance to take them back. For works created on or after January 1, 1978, the right can be exercised during a five-year window that opens 35 or 40 years after the grant, depending on the type of grant. For works created before January 1, 1978, there is a different section of the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows you to terminate those grants.

In practice, the way section 203 terminations work are that an artist or their heirs has to serve advance written notice on the current owner or grantee, which is known as the notice of termination. Once you serve notice of termination on the current owner and each successor-in-interest you must record it with the Copyright Office. There are a couple exceptions, the most commonly citing one is that termination rights do not apply to "works made for hire." Under the “work for hire” exception the employer or commissioning party, normally a label or publisher keeps full ownership of the copyright. Additionally, if a work has multiple authors, the statute requires a majority of the authors (or their successors in interest) to sign the termination notice. Also, only grants made by authors (i.e., not made by a furnishing company or loan-out company) are eligible for termination.

There are several cases that MAC is tracking across the country and in Supreme Court. The following is summaries of two important legal cases that impact termination rights in different ways.

2 Live Crew v Lil’ Joe Records

Before their courtroom battles over their catalog, 2 Live Crew had already etched their names into history. The Miami hip-hop group broke out with their 1986 debut The 2 Live Crew Is What We Are. Luther Campbell, then a local DJ and promoter, gave the group a record deal through Luke Skyywalker Records and later joined as a member. 2 Live Crew has been an influential act in shaping the culture of Southern hip-hop.

The case

2 Live Crew’s first five albums were sold to Lil' Joe Records in the 1990s. In 2020, Campbell, Mark Ross, and the heirs of Christopher Wong Won sent a notice of termination to Lil’ Joe for the copyrights of the albums. Lil' Joe then brought a lawsuit against the members who served notice, arguing among other things that the members were artists for hire. In October 2024, a Florida jury found that the members did not create the albums within the scope of employment (i.e., the work for hire exception failed), and that the grant of right in the agreement was terminated by the notice. It was a rare jury win for artists on a work-for-hire theory.

Lil’ Joe appealed to the Eleventh Circuit and in of June 2026 they reversed, and grounds having nothing to do with work for hire exception. The court concluded that Ross, one of the members who signed the notice of termination, had lost his termination right, and thus the whole notice was invalid and Lil’ Joe was able to retain the copyright.

For a section 203 termination if a work has multiple authors, the statute requires a majority of the authors (or their successors in interest) to sign the termination notice. 2 Live Crew had four original members: Luther Campbell, Mark Ross, Christopher Wong Won, and David Hobbs. Campbell, Ross, and Wong Won's heirs were the parties that served the notice on Lil' Joe. Hobbs did not join.

On appeal, Lil' Joe argued that when Ross filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2000, neither Ross nor his representatives scheduled, administered, or otherwise disclosed Ross's termination interests during the bankruptcy proceedings. Under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, property interests that are not properly scheduled or administered generally remain part of the bankruptcy estate unless the court orders otherwise.

Because Ross never disclosed his termination interests in the 2000 bankruptcy proceeding, the court concluded that those interests remained property of the bankruptcy estate. As a result, Ross did not personally hold the interests necessary to participate in the 2024 termination effort. Without Ross's one-quarter interest, only the interests held by Campbell and Wong Won's heirs counted toward the notice. The court therefore held that the notice was invalid because it represented only two of the four authors' interests, and the copyright remained with Lil' Joe.

The court emphasized, however, that its holding should be interpreted narrowly. It did not address how termination interests should generally be treated in bankruptcy, nor did it decide what steps Ross's heirs would need to take to exercise those interests in light of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Salt-N-Pepa v. Universal Music Group

Cheryl "Salt" James and Sandra "Pepa" Denton came out of Queens and helped prove that women could run hip-hop on their own terms. They are a Grammy-winning act and Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductees and are currently touring the country with En Vogue and TLC. They delivered iconic hits like “Push It” and “Shoop,” and their music resonates across the nation.

The case

Salt-N-Pepa served termination notices on UMG in March 2022. The notices claimed that the earliest effective dates for grants to terminate would be on May 15, 2024. UMG responded to them with counter-notices arguing that Salt-N-Pepa never made a grant of the recordings to UMG (or its predecessors), and alternatively if that argument didn’t stick that the recordings were works made for hire. The duo then responded with a lawsuit in federal district court and sued UMG on May 19, 2025, alleging that UMG was refusing to honor their notices. The lawsuit covered their first four albums, Hot, Cool & Vicious, A Salt with a Deadly Pepa, Blacks' Magic, and Very Necessary. They also accused UMG of retaliating by pulling their music from streaming platforms. In January 2026, a district court Judge dismissed the case before it ever got to a trial.

Judge Denise Cote found that the underlying 1986 agreements did not show Salt-N-Pepa ever owned the copyrights and thus transferred them to UMG (or its predecessors). Their producer Hurby "Luv Bug" Azor and his company, Noise in the Attic Productions, had granted rights and been signatory to the agreement with the label Next Plateau. The duo appealed, to which, the Music Artists Coalition (MAC) supported their argument that the lower courts holding conflicted greatly with Congress's intent.

The Second Circuit heard oral argument on September 22, 2026. The panel of appeals court judge did not rule from the bench. Attorneys for Salt-N-Pepa argued that there is no basis in the statute for requiring artists to expressly assert ownership in their contracts. UMG’s attorneys maintained that there was no grant by Salt-N-Pepa under the original agreement, which the termination provision requires.

During oral arguments one of the Judges indicated support for the idea that a "fundamental principle" of copyright law is that ownership vests in the owner upon creation of the work. The judge referred to two albums released before 1986 (which predated the agreement at issue, so there are still issues with respect to the albums post 1986). UMG’s attorney succeeded on the copyright vesting in Salt-N-Pepa for the first two albums, however, which is also a positive indication. There is no set timetable for the decision, but typically, it arrives about a month or so after oral arguments.

What should be the takeaway from this?

Know your chain of title. Section 203 only covers grants made by the author. Find out exactly who granted your rights, whether that was you personally, a producer's company, or a loan-out entity, and get every agreement in the chain into one folder. If your name isn't on the grant, you may have a problem before the fight even begins.

Read the fine print, not just the main contract. Inducement letters, side letters, and artist-services agreements can decide who the "grantor" was. Have an attorney read them for what they say about ownership, not just what they say about royalties.

Audit your personal history and your group's. A bankruptcy filed years after your recording deal can still affect your termination rights, as the 2 Live Crew ruling shows. If anyone in your group has ever filed, get legal advice on what that means before serving notice.

Do the group math. For jointly created works, termination requires a majority of the authors who signed the grant. That makes every member's individual situation part of everyone's case, and it's worth confirming early that enough members are able to act.

Expect the work-for-hire argument. Save anything showing you worked as an independent artist, such as how you were engaged, who paid for sessions, and who controlled the creative process.

Get the notice right and on time. Termination windows and notice requirements are strict. Serve the notice on the correct grant, in the correct form, within your window, and record it properly. Mistakes usually show up only when the label challenges you, and by then they can't be fixed.

Plan for the label's response. Salt-N-Pepa alleged their music was pulled from streaming after they served notice. Before you send anything, think about income, promotion, and how you'll keep in touch with fans if the label pushes back.

Bring in counsel before you act, not after. Both cases turned on issues that a careful review of the paperwork could have possibly flagged early. An entertainment or copyright attorney is far cheaper at the front end than on the back end.

Bottom line: the right exists on paper, but you have to be able to prove that you made the grant, that you're still able to terminate it, and that you did it correctly. Artists who find these things out early will be better positioned than those who find out in court.