Your Passion, Our Protection
More than legal protection, we’re true partners to those shaping culture through creativity.
Instagram's approach to music licensing creates a peculiar paradox: the platform offers brands access to thousands of popular songs through its in-app music picker, yet using those same tracks for commercial purposes can expose companies to copyright infringement lawsuits. This contradiction has left marketing teams confused and brands vulnerable, caught between Instagram's user-friendly interface and the harsh reality of music licensing law[21][23].
Instagram's music library appears deceptively generous. Personal and Creator accounts can access an extensive catalog of licensed tracks from major artists, seamlessly integrated into Reels, Stories, and posts[22][26]. This availability stems from Meta's licensing agreements with record labels and publishers—but those deals come with a critical caveat that Instagram's interface does little to clarify.
The licenses Meta holds for popular music in its library are explicitly limited to personal, non-commercial use[21][28]. The moment content promotes a brand, product, or service, it crosses into commercial territory where those licenses no longer apply[21]. Business accounts technically shouldn't have access to the mainstream music library at all, yet many discover they can still browse and select popular tracks[23][24].
This creates a dangerous trap. Some Business accounts see the same music library that personal accounts access, leading teams to assume these tracks are cleared for commercial use. They're not. As one legal expert explained, "Just because you have the option on the platform, doesn't give you the right to use it. This would be an easy loss in court"[23].
To address this gap, Meta provides the Sound Collection—a library of over 14,000 royalty-free tracks and sound effects specifically cleared for commercial use across Facebook and Instagram[21][22][62]. In theory, this solves the licensing problem for Business accounts. In practice, it creates new challenges.
First, the Sound Collection represents a tiny fraction of Instagram's full music catalog. While personal accounts can tap into trending sounds that drive algorithmic visibility, Business accounts are relegated to a smaller pool of less recognizable tracks[26][62]. This disparity places brands at a competitive disadvantage, particularly when organic reach on Instagram increasingly depends on audio selection.
Second, many Business account holders simply don't know the Sound Collection exists. Instagram's interface doesn't prominently distinguish between personal-use music and commercial-use tracks when brands browse audio options[22][25]. The platform assumes users understand the licensing implications—an assumption that has proven devastatingly incorrect.
Faced with these restrictions, some brands have adopted a controversial solution: switching from Business accounts to Creator accounts. This tactic provides access to the broader music library while technically maintaining commercial functionality like insights and promotional tools[24][103].
From a platform perspective, Creator accounts sit in a gray area. They're designed for influencers, public figures, and content creators who may monetize their content but aren't directly selling products[26]. Instagram's terms don't explicitly prohibit businesses from using Creator accounts, creating an exploitable loophole.
From a legal perspective, however, this workaround offers zero protection. Copyright law doesn't care about account types—it cares about how music is used. If content promotes a commercial entity, it requires commercial licensing regardless of whether it's posted from a Business, Creator, or Personal account[23]. Music publishers pursuing infringement claims examine the content itself, not the Instagram account category.
Another common mistake involves reposting user-generated content that features popular music. A brand sees an influencer or customer create a video using a trending song, then shares that content to their own Business account. This seems safe—after all, the brand didn't select the music, and the original creator presumably had access to the track through their personal account.
Yet multiple lawsuits have established that brands can be held liable for music in reposted content, particularly when they benefit commercially from the post[115]. Sony Music's lawsuit against OFRA Cosmetics sought up to $50 million in damages based largely on influencer-created content that OFRA shared on its own channels[115]. The fact that OFRA didn't create the original posts or select the music proved irrelevant—by amplifying the content for commercial purposes, the brand assumed liability.
Instagram's rollout of monetization features for Reels has added another layer of complexity. The platform allows creators to earn money from Reels that include music from Instagram's library, but only under specific conditions. Tracks must be labeled as royalty-free, and certain songs marked with an "E" for explicit content are excluded from monetization eligibility[22][59].
For Business accounts, this creates confusion. Some brands assume that if Instagram permits monetization with certain tracks, those tracks must be cleared for commercial use. This logic fails to account for the difference between creator monetization (where Instagram shares ad revenue) and brand commercial use (where companies directly benefit from promoting products).
Meta's official guidance on music licensing is deliberately vague. The company acknowledges that it "must uphold agreements with rights holders" and that "access to the licensed music library varies by territory and account type"[28][37]. What Meta doesn't explicitly state is that the music available to Business accounts through the general library is not licensed for commercial use—even though the platform allows brands to access and use it.
This omission isn't accidental. Meta benefits when brands create engaging content, and music significantly increases engagement metrics. Explicitly restricting Business accounts from popular music would reduce content quality and platform activity. By maintaining ambiguity, Meta shifts legal liability to brands while preserving the content ecosystem that drives its advertising business.
A case discussed in music industry forums illustrates the confusion perfectly. A major European football club posted celebration content to Instagram featuring a song from Instagram's library. The club's Business account could access and use the track, leading them to assume it was properly licensed. The post generated seven million views[24].
Music publishers later claimed the club needed explicit synchronization rights for commercial use, regardless of the song's availability in Instagram's library. The club argued that if Instagram provided access to the track through its Business account interface, surely it must be cleared for use. Publishers countered that platform availability doesn't equal licensing permission[24].
This disagreement underscores the fundamental problem: Instagram's user experience suggests one set of rules while copyright law enforces another.
Brands have three legitimate options for Instagram music licensing. The first and safest is using only tracks from Meta's Sound Collection, which are explicitly cleared for commercial use across Facebook and Instagram[21][22]. While limited in scope, these tracks eliminate legal risk.
The second option involves licensing music directly from rights holders through synchronization agreements. This requires identifying copyright owners (often multiple parties including labels, publishers, and songwriters), negotiating terms, and paying fees that can range from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per track[20][36]. The process is time-consuming and expensive, making it practical only for major campaigns.
The third option leverages third-party licensing platforms like Soundstripe, Epidemic Sound, or Track Club. These services offer pre-cleared music with commercial rights explicitly covering social media use, including Instagram. While subscription costs apply, they're substantially lower than direct licensing fees and provide access to professional-quality music libraries[20][27][131].
What brands cannot do is assume that music available in Instagram's picker is safe to use. The platform's interface suggests accessibility, but accessibility doesn't equal license compliance. As copyright enforcement intensifies—with major labels actively monitoring brand accounts and filing multi-million dollar lawsuits—the cost of this misunderstanding has never been higher.
The licensing gap on Instagram isn't a technical glitch or policy oversight. It's the structural result of Meta's conflicting priorities: fostering creative content while respecting music rights, serving both personal users and commercial accounts through the same interface, and maintaining platform engagement without directly policing every licensing scenario. Brands that understand this tension can navigate it successfully. Those that rely on Instagram's interface to signal what's legally permissible are taking risks that extend far beyond their social media presence.
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.