Your Passion, Our Protection
More than legal protection, we’re true partners to those shaping culture through creativity.
Meta's empire spans Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, connecting billions of users through interconnected platforms that promise seamless content sharing. Yet when it comes to music licensing, Meta's ecosystem is anything but unified. The copyright rules governing Facebook Reels differ significantly from Instagram Reels, despite both platforms being owned by the same company and sharing nearly identical interfaces[59][63].
Facebook's music licensing operates through two parallel systems that serve fundamentally different purposes. The platform's licensed music catalog includes thousands of popular songs available through partnerships with major labels and publishers. These tracks can be added to Reels and Stories through the in-app music picker, creating an impression of unlimited creative freedom[59][74].
However, this licensed music comes with a critical restriction: it's approved for personal, non-commercial use only[69]. Business Pages attempting to use these popular tracks for promotional content enter legally questionable territory. Meta's licensing agreements with rights holders explicitly exclude commercial applications, meaning the same song that a personal account can freely use becomes unlicensed when a brand's Business Page posts content promoting products or services[69].
The second system, Meta's Sound Collection, offers royalty-free music and sound effects specifically cleared for commercial use across Facebook and Instagram[59][62][74]. With over 14,000 tracks, the Sound Collection represents Meta's official solution for Business Pages and commercial content. The problem is that most brands either don't know it exists or don't realize they're required to use it exclusively.
Meta actively encourages cross-posting between Facebook and Instagram, offering built-in tools to publish Reels simultaneously to both platforms. This feature creates major copyright complications that Meta does little to clarify[33][59].
When users cross-post content containing licensed music from Instagram to Facebook, the audio availability can change between platforms. A track licensed for Instagram may not be cleared for Facebook, causing the sound to disappear entirely when the post appears on the second platform[33][59]. This happens because Meta's licensing deals with music publishers are platform-specific and sometimes territory-specific, creating an invisible patchwork of rights that users can't easily navigate.
For brands, this means Reels that comply with licensing rules on one platform may violate them on another—even though both platforms are owned by Meta and the cross-posting was performed using Meta's own tools[129]. A Business Page that creates a Reel on Facebook using music from the licensed catalog, then shares it to Instagram, may face copyright claims on Instagram even if Facebook deemed the original post compliant.
Facebook's interface presents brands with a peculiar contradiction. Business Pages can see and select music from the broader licensed catalog—the same tracks available to personal accounts[23][64]. The platform doesn't restrict access at the interface level, instead relying on users to understand the licensing implications of their account type and content purpose.
This design choice shifts liability from Meta to brands. When a Business Page posts a Reel featuring a popular song pulled from Facebook's music picker, Meta doesn't prevent the post or display a warning. The content goes live, accumulates views and engagement, and may perform well for weeks or months before rights holders identify it[64][73].
Then, suddenly, the music is muted or the entire Reel is removed. Meta sends a copyright notice explaining that the content violated music licensing agreements[64]. Brands are left confused: if Facebook didn't want Business Pages using this music, why did it appear as an available option?
The answer lies in how Meta structures its relationship with music rights holders. Meta's agreements require the company to enforce licensing restrictions, but they apparently don't require Meta to prevent violations proactively. The platform allows users to post potentially infringing content, then responds to rights holder complaints after the fact. This approach maximizes content volume and platform engagement while maintaining technical compliance with licensing deals.
Meta's announcement that Reels bonus programs would end on August 31, 2025, marked a significant shift in how creators and brands could earn money from Facebook content[63]. The change forced everyone into Meta's new monetization system, which applies stricter requirements around music usage[63][66].
Under the updated framework, full monetization on Reels applies exclusively to royalty-free tracks from Meta's Sound Collection. Commercial songs from the licensed music library either block monetization entirely or route revenue into a sharing arrangement where rights holders claim a portion of earnings[59][76]. Tracks marked with an "E" for explicit content are excluded from monetization eligibility regardless of whether they're royalty-free[59].
This policy creates a direct financial incentive for brands to use Sound Collection music, but it doesn't prevent them from using non-royalty-free tracks. Business Pages can still post Reels with popular licensed music—they just can't monetize those posts. For brands primarily focused on reach and engagement rather than direct ad revenue, this seems like an acceptable trade-off. What they miss is that non-monetized posts with licensed music still violate commercial use restrictions, leaving brands open to copyright claims and lawsuits[60][69].
Facebook Reels face the same influencer-related copyright risks that have spawned lawsuits on other platforms. When brands partner with creators to produce promotional content, they often assume the influencer bears responsibility for music licensing. This assumption has proven expensive and wrong[99][130].
If a brand pays an influencer to create a Reel promoting their product, and that Reel features copyrighted music without proper commercial licensing, both the influencer and the brand can be held liable. Legal precedent established in cases like UMG Recordings v. Bang Energy shows that brands with sufficient control or financial benefit from influencer content can face contributory copyright infringement claims[137].
The level of oversight matters significantly. Brands that provide creative direction, review content before publication, or maintain approval rights create stronger connections between themselves and any copyright violations in the influencer's posts[137]. Even brands that simply amplify influencer content by resharing it to their own Business Page assume liability for the music in those posts[115].
Meta's music licenses vary by country, creating situations where the same Reel may be compliant in one territory but infringing in another[59][63]. A brand operating internationally might discover their Reel is blocked in Germany but viewable in the United States, or vice versa, because Meta's agreements with rights holders don't cover all territories uniformly.
For global brands running coordinated campaigns across multiple markets, this creates a compliance nightmare. A Reel using licensed music must be cleared for commercial use in every country where the Business Page has followers, not just where the brand's headquarters are located[7][59]. Securing global rights typically requires direct licensing from copyright holders—exactly what Meta's music library was supposed to help brands avoid.
Meta's official music guidelines state that users are "responsible for the content they post" and that "using music for commercial or non-personal purposes is prohibited unless you have obtained appropriate licenses"[61][65]. What Meta conspicuously omits is clear, prominent guidance that Business Pages using Facebook Reels for promotional content should use only the Sound Collection, not the broader licensed music catalog.
Meta acknowledges that it "sometimes makes mistakes" and that content could be removed in error[61]. But the systematic issue isn't errors—it's the fundamental design of Facebook's music features, which allow Business Pages to access and use music that Meta's licensing deals don't actually cover for commercial purposes.
Brands have three legitimate options for Facebook Reels music. They can use exclusively tracks from Meta's Sound Collection, which are explicitly labeled as royalty-free and cleared for commercial use on Facebook and Instagram[59][74]. They can license music directly from rights holders through synchronization agreements that specifically cover commercial Facebook use[84].
Or they can work with third-party licensing platforms offering pre-cleared music with explicit commercial rights for social media, maintaining documentation proving their licenses cover Facebook[61][131]. What they cannot safely do is select music from Facebook's broader licensed catalog and assume their Business Page status or promotional content qualifies as permitted use.
The copyright crisis in Meta's empire isn't about unclear law—music copyright has been well-established for over a century. It's about the deliberate ambiguity in Meta's platform design, where the interface suggests broader permissions than the underlying licenses actually provide. Brands that recognize this gap can navigate it successfully. Those that rely on what Meta's interface appears to permit rather than what copyright law actually allows are discovering, through expensive litigation, just how wide that gap really is.
From general questions to potential IP misuse, choose the option that best fits your case.
Our team will review your submission and get back to you as soon as possible.