From Viral to Liability: Influencers Learning the Hard Way About Music Rights

Influencers and content creators built careers on viral content, trending sounds, and perfectly-soundtracked posts—until music copyright enforcement taught harsh lessons about intellectual property law. The democratization of content creation collided with centuries-old copyright principles, leaving influencers facing personal liability for using the very music that platforms encourage them to incorporate. Understanding influencer copyright risks has become essential for survival in the creator economy.

From TikTok to the courtroom, influencers face mounting legal challenges (https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/from-tiktok-to-the-courtroom-influencers-face-mounting-legal-challeng). For instance, in March 2025, Warner Music Group sued Designer Shoe Warehouse for allegedly using over 200 copyrighted tracks in influencer-created TikTok and Instagram ads without licensing. Warner is seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song, potentially exposing DSW to claims exceeding $30 million (https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/from-tiktok-to-the-courtroom-influencers-face-mounting-legal-challeng).

The influencer marketing model creates complex copyright liability chains. When brands hire influencers who use unlicensed music to promote products, both parties potentially face infringement claims (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/copyright-infringement-litigations-based-influencer-posts-how-protect-your-business). Music companies advance secondary liability theories, arguing brands benefited from or failed to police influencers' unlicensed music use, making them responsible for copyright infringement. This means influencers face direct infringement liability while brands face contributory or vicarious infringement liability.

Influencer vulnerability stems from several factors. First, content volume creates massive exposure—successful influencers post daily or multiple times daily, with each post potentially containing copyrighted music. Second, platform features actively encourage music use through integrated libraries and trending sound recommendations. Third, the creator economy's informal nature means many influencers lack business structures, insurance, or legal counsel. Fourth, viral success attracts music industry attention precisely when influencers are most visible.

The risks of using music on social media extend beyond direct infringement (https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/drag-drop-infringe-risks-using-music-social-media-2024-10-17/). Statutory damages range from $750 to $150,000 per infringed work, with higher amounts awarded for willful infringement. Alternatively, copyright owners can pursue actual damages and disgorgement of infringer's profits. For influencers monetizing content through brand partnerships, affiliate sales, or platform payments, profit disgorgement could equal or exceed statutory damages.

Bang Energy's litigation illustrates influencer partnership risks. Universal Music sued the energy drink company for copyright infringement involving approximately 140 TikTok videos (https://lowelaw.com/bang-energy-liable-for-infringing-music-on-tiktok/). Bang hired social media influencers to promote products on platforms like TikTok. Bang's social media team monitored these videos and took consensual ownership of the ones performing best. These videos, then reposted by Bang onto their own TikTok account, contained copyrighted music including Universal's recordings.

Courts found Bang liable for vicarious copyright infringement regarding influencer videos (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-music-scores-partial-victory-in-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-against-bang-energy12). In the vicarious infringement analysis, Sony demonstrated that Bang exercised right and ability to supervise or control influencers' activities and earned direct financial benefit from infringement. Bang Energy agreements required paying certain percentages of profits for influencers to market products, and in return, influencers' posts were subject to Bang's supervision, editing, and approval (https://www.fbm.com/publications/copyright-law-for-influencers-and-brands-how-content-creators-and-companies-hiring-them-can-nav).

For influencers, the Bang Energy precedent means brand partnerships do not shield them from personal liability—they potentially create it. When influencers sign agreements giving brands supervision, editing, and approval rights over content, they create documentary evidence that brands can be held liable for influencer copyright violations. However, these same agreements often lack indemnification provisions protecting influencers from third-party claims or requiring brands to provide legal defense.

Copyright law for influencers and brands requires careful contract drafting (https://www.fbm.com/publications/copyright-law-for-influencers-and-brands-how-content-creators-and-companies-hiring-them-can-nav). Content creators and companies hiring them must navigate copyright law for successful partnerships. Key contractual provisions include: music licensing responsibilities, representations and warranties that content does not infringe third-party rights, indemnification obligations, insurance requirements, and content approval processes that include copyright review.

DSW's defensive litigation strategy demonstrates brand pushback against music company enforcement. In July 2025, DSW filed a declaratory judgment action against Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and BMG Rights Management, seeking court ruling that it is not liable for influencer videos incorporating unlicensed music (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/copyright-infringement-litigations-based-influencer-posts-how-protect-your-business). Most videos at the heart of cases were posted on social media platforms by influencers who had commercial relationships with DSW to promote products.

Music companies' legal theory is simple: copyrighted music appeared in commercial posts without a license, copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, and therefore infringement occurred (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/copyright-infringement-litigations-based-influencer-posts-how-protect-your-business). Music companies can sue anyone who materially contributes to, profits from, or is legally responsible for infringement. They often choose to sue brands instead of individual influencers for both convenience and because brands have deeper pockets.

However, nothing prevents music companies from pursuing influencers directly. Influencers posting sponsored content with unlicensed music are direct infringers. Their relative financial resources compared to brand partners might make them less attractive defendants, but statutory damages do not scale to defendant wealth. A struggling micro-influencer faces identical per-work statutory damages as a Fortune 500 corporation.

Risk management for influencers requires proactive compliance. First, understand that sponsored content, product promotion, affiliate marketing, and brand partnerships all constitute commercial uses requiring sync licenses for copyrighted music. Second, use only properly licensed music from royalty-free services like Epidemic Sound, Artlist, or Soundstripe offering unlimited commercial use for reasonable subscription fees. Third, create original audio when possible—your own voice, self-performed music, or pure voiceovers without background music.

Fourth, negotiate brand contracts carefully. Require brands to provide music licensing or explicitly allocate music licensing responsibility. Include indemnification provisions where brands agree to defend influencers against third-party claims arising from content created pursuant to brand guidelines. Ensure insurance requirements include coverage for intellectual property claims. Fifth, maintain content creation insurance if available and affordable—some policies now include intellectual property violation coverage.

Sixth, respond immediately to takedown notices or cease-and-desist letters. Continuing infringement after notification transforms ordinary violations into willful infringement carrying maximum statutory damages. Seventh, consider that trending TikTok sound's viral potential might not justify copyright liability it creates. Eighth, diversify income streams to reduce dependence on platforms that might remove infringing content, eliminating videos that took months to gain traction.

The creator economy's sustainability depends partly on copyright compliance. Platforms benefit from influencer content driving engagement but bear no liability for influencer copyright violations. Brands benefit from influencer promotion but often shift liability to creators through one-sided contracts. Music companies benefit from free promotion while reserving rights to sue for damages. Influencers bear disproportionate risks in this ecosystem, making copyright literacy essential survival skills.

The viral-to-liability pipeline represents the dark side of democratized content creation. What begins as trending sound experimentation and creative expression ends as demand letters and settlement negotiations. Influencers learning these lessons the hard way often face choices between career-ending liability and bankruptcy-inducing settlements. In 2025, influencer education about music rights must be foundational, not optional—because the legal education provided by music companies through copyright litigation is far more expensive than the compliance investments required to avoid it.