The Great Music Licensing Myth: 'If It's On the Platform, It's Legal'

One of the most dangerous and expensive misconceptions in digital content creation is the belief that music available on social media platforms is automatically legal to use for any purpose. This myth has cost brands millions of dollars in copyright settlements and continues to ensnare businesses, influencers, and content creators in costly litigation throughout 2025. Understanding why platform availability does not equal legal usage is essential for anyone creating commercial content.

The myth stems from platform user experiences that make adding music to content effortless. TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and Facebook all offer extensive music libraries integrated directly into their creation tools. Users can browse thousands of songs, preview them, and add them to videos with single taps. This seamless experience creates the false impression that all available music is cleared for any use by any user.

Platform music licenses cover only personal, non-commercial use by individual creators. Major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group have negotiated licenses with social media platforms allowing personal users to incorporate music into content (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-music-sues-1bn-valued-fitness-brand-gymshark-for-infringing-297-recordings-in-ads/). However, these agreements explicitly exclude commercial exploitation, business accounts, advertising, product promotion, and influencer marketing.

Instagram's Music Guidelines explicitly state: "Use of music for commercial or nonpersonal purposes in particular is prohibited unless you have obtained appropriate licenses" (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-music-sues-1bn-valued-fitness-brand-gymshark-for-infringing-297-recordings-in-ads/). TikTok's Terms of Service clarify that "No rights are licensed with respect to sound recordings" beyond platform-authorized personal use. These terms create clear boundaries that many businesses ignore, assuming platform availability means universal permission.

The distinction between creator accounts and business accounts matters significantly. Creator accounts access copyrighted music through platform licenses designed for personal expression and entertainment. Business accounts using identical music for commercial purposes fall outside license scope. However, platform interfaces rarely make these distinctions clear at the point of content creation, allowing businesses to use music they are not licensed to use (https://www.reddit.com/r/videography/comments/1lp3gzf/asked_to_use_copyrighted_music_on_social_media/).

Epidemic Sound identifies common myths including the dangerous belief that "influencers and other brands use tracks on social media, so you can too" (https://www.epidemicsound.com/blog/music-licensing-myths-for-businesses/). This myth fails to account for several possibilities: other users might have separate licenses, they might be infringing and not yet caught, their content might qualify as personal rather than commercial use, or platform enforcement might be inconsistent and delayed.

Music publishers strategically wait to enforce copyrights. Rather than pursuing takedowns immediately, major labels often allow infringements to accumulate before filing lawsuits. This strategy maximizes statutory damage calculations—with potential damages of $750 to $150,000 per work, waiting until businesses have used dozens or hundreds of songs makes enforcement economically worthwhile (https://www.reddit.com/r/videography/comments/1lp3gzf/asked_to_use_copyrighted_music_on_social_media/). By the time brands receive cease-and-desist letters, they face massive liability for content posted months or years earlier.

Warner Music Group's lawsuit against Crumbl Cookies exemplifies platform myth dangers. Warner sued the dessert chain for using at least 159 sound recordings by artists such as Dua Lipa, BTS, Taylor Swift, Lizzo, and Beyoncé without consent (https://restaurantbusinessonline.com/marketing/crumbl-sued-24m-over-music-copyright-violations). Crumbl counted 286 instances where these recordings were used in videos, continuing even after receiving cease-and-desist letters in August 2023. The complaint noted Crumbl's own January 2024 TikTok video stating: "We were gonna make a funny video to promote Mystery Cookie, but legal said we can't use any trending audios."

The Crumbl case demonstrates awareness of the platform myth's falsity. Crumbl's legal team clearly understood that trending TikTok audios—music readily available through the platform's built-in library—were not legally usable for commercial promotion. However, by the time this awareness emerged, Crumbl faced potential damages of up to $24 million (https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102ka8t/warner-music-group-sues-crumbl-cookies-over-use-of-music-in-social-media-posts).

Gymshark's $44 million exposure illustrates the platform myth's costs. Sony Music sued the fitness apparel brand for allegedly infringing 297 recordings in social media videos featuring artists including Beyoncé, Britney Spears, The Chainsmokers, Justin Timberlake, Travis Scott, Harry Styles, and Calvin Harris (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-music-sues-1bn-valued-fitness-brand-gymshark-for-infringing-297-recordings-in-ads/). Sony's lawsuit explained that Gymshark videos "feature popular sound recordings as an integral part of the presentation" but the company "has not paid for the privilege to use the sound recordings that are featured in them."

Platform availability particularly misleads sophisticated businesses. Marriott International, the world's largest hotel chain, faced Sony Music's lawsuit alleging 931 infringements of sound recordings in social media posts (https://www.epgdlaw.com/sony-music-v-marriott-copyright-infringement-and-social-media-marketing/). Marriott's extensive music licensing experience for television commercials apparently did not prevent the platform availability myth from affecting its social media strategy. Sony claimed Marriott was aware of copyright issues as early as January 2020 but continued posting infringing content.

Designer Shoe Warehouse's litigation demonstrates platform myth persistence. Warner Music sued DSW for allegedly misappropriating over 200 recordings and compositions in TikTok and Instagram posts (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/warner-music-sues-retail-giant-designer-shoe-warehouse-for-allegedly-infringing-200-works). Warner's complaint noted that "during its 55-year history, DSW has repeatedly licensed music for promoting its brand and products in television commercials" and had "licensed music for its commercials from WMG in the past." Despite this licensing sophistication, DSW allegedly failed to obtain licenses for social media content using platform-available music.

The myth extends to related misconceptions. Epidemic Sound identifies additional false beliefs: royalty-free music means no additional fees, AI-generated music is not copyrighted, using less than 30 seconds of a track is safe, crediting the artist means you can use the track, and if you are not monetizing you can use any track (https://www.epidemicsound.com/blog/music-licensing-myths-for-businesses/). Each represents dangerous misunderstanding of copyright law that platform availability reinforces.

Platform availability creates no copyright defense. US copyright law operates as strict liability—intent and knowledge are irrelevant to establishing infringement (https://www.musicologize.com/brands-need-to-be-careful-about-unlicensed-music-in-tiktok-videos/). Following a "rule" that you believe to be true but which turns out to be a myth will not excuse liability for infringement. Even innocent infringement only reduces damage amounts and does not excuse the infringement itself.

The only reliable approach is obtaining proper licenses for commercial music uses. This means sync licenses negotiated directly with rights holders for marketing content, advertising, product promotion, and business social media posts. Platform availability should be treated as irrelevant to licensing questions—just because music appears in TikTok's audio library or Instagram's music stickers does not mean businesses can use it commercially. The great music licensing myth continues to cost brands millions in settlements precisely because platform availability creates false confidence that leads to systematic infringement.