Your Passion, Our Protection
More than legal protection, we’re true partners to those shaping culture through creativity.
Social media platforms have built their success on user-generated content, and music has become the soundtrack fueling that content. TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube each offer massive music libraries accessible with simple clicks, transforming ordinary videos into emotionally resonant content that drives engagement. This musical integration has created a powerful illusion: if a platform lets you use music, it must be legal.
That illusion is costing brands millions in copyright infringement damages.
When Meta signed deals reportedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars with record labels to bring music to Instagram and Facebook, the company promoted these agreements as democratizing music access. TikTok similarly negotiated licenses covering millions of songs, positioning itself as a platform where music and creativity intersect seamlessly. YouTube's Content ID system and music library were presented as solutions to copyright concerns.
What platforms don't prominently advertise is that these licenses come with strict limitations on commercial use. The fine print—buried in terms of service and music usage policies—clarifies that platform music libraries generally cover personal, non-commercial content only. The moment content crosses into commercial territory, platform licenses become irrelevant, and separate licensing becomes mandatory.
This gap between what platforms make possible and what they make legal creates a lucrative trap. Platforms benefit from brands using music to create engaging content that keeps users on their apps. The more compelling branded content becomes, the more time users spend on platforms, and the more advertising revenue platforms generate. Meanwhile, music rightsholders watch brands exploit valuable copyrighted works without compensation, building cases for massive statutory damages.
In response to commercial use concerns, platforms have created separate commercial music libraries with pre-cleared tracks for business use. TikTok's Commercial Music Library (CML) and Meta's Sound Collection represent official solutions for brands seeking legal music sources. However, these commercial libraries contain a fraction of the songs available for personal use and rarely include current hits or trending tracks that brands most want to leverage.
TikTok's Commercial Music Library restricts business accounts to approximately one million tracks—substantial, but a small subset of the platform's overall music catalog. Meta's Sound Collection contains only about 14,000 tracks across Instagram and Facebook, compared to the millions available for personal accounts. These commercial libraries skew toward lesser-known artists, instrumental music, and older catalogs, specifically excluding many songs from major artists who drive viral trends.
The disparity creates a dilemma for brands. They can choose safety by limiting themselves to commercial libraries, accepting that their content will be less engaging and less likely to capitalize on trending audio. Or they can take risks by using popular music from general libraries, betting that music rightsholders won't notice or won't pursue enforcement.
Increasingly, brands are learning that rights holders definitely notice—and enforcement is aggressive.
One of the most dangerous features on TikTok and Instagram is the "Original Sound" function, which allows users to extract audio from any video and reuse it in their own content. When someone creates a video using a copyrighted song from the general music library, that audio becomes available as an "Original Sound" that other users, including business accounts, can technically access even if the official version is restricted.
Brands have exploited this loophole, reasoning that if they can't use Taylor Swift's official recording, they can use an "Original Sound" extracted from another user's video that features Taylor Swift's song. Platforms treat these Original Sounds as distinct from official recordings in their technical systems, allowing access that would otherwise be blocked.
Legally, this distinction is meaningless. Using a copyrighted song through an Original Sound still constitutes use of that copyrighted work, requiring the same commercial licenses as using the official recording. Courts don't recognize platform technical classifications as defenses to copyright infringement. If the audio contains copyrighted music, using it commercially without authorization infringes—regardless of whether it's labeled as an official track or an Original Sound.
DSW allegedly employed this strategy, according to Sony Music's lawsuit. The complaint stated that DSW "posted all the Infringing Posts to TikTok after August 2020, apparently by falsely representing either that the Infringing Posts contained no copyrighted sound recordings or that DSW had obtained all necessary rights and permissions to use the SME Recordings."
Facing restrictions on business accounts, some brands have switched their designation to "creator" accounts to access fuller music libraries. TikTok and Instagram allow users to toggle between account types, and creator accounts enjoy broader music access than business accounts—similar to personal accounts.
This workaround provides technical access but zero legal protection. Account type doesn't determine whether content constitutes commercial use; the nature of the content itself does. If a "creator" account consistently posts content promoting products, services, or brands, that account is engaging in commercial use requiring appropriate licensing, regardless of its technical classification.
Moreover, platforms have begun detecting and restricting this behavior. TikTok's updated terms warn that using creator accounts for business purposes violates platform policies and can result in content removal or account penalties. But beyond platform enforcement, the legal risk remains: music rightsholders can sue for infringement regardless of account type if content promotes commercial interests using unlicensed music.
Compounding the licensing confusion is brands' assumption that music cleared on one platform can be used across others. A marketing team creates engaging content for TikTok using its commercial music library, then routinely downloads that video and uploads it to Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to maximize reach.
Each cross-platform upload potentially constitutes a separate copyright infringement.
Platform music licenses are platform-specific. TikTok's agreements with record labels grant rights for use within TikTok's ecosystem only. Those rights don't travel with downloaded content to other platforms. Each platform negotiates separate licenses with different terms, different covered tracks, and different restrictions.
This means a song available in TikTok's commercial library might not exist in Instagram's commercial library, or might be available on YouTube under entirely different terms. Using the same music across multiple platforms requires either verifying availability in each platform's commercial library and creating native content for each, or licensing the music directly from rightsholders for multi-platform commercial use.
The latter option—direct licensing—quickly becomes expensive. Synchronization licenses for popular songs in commercial campaigns often cost thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the song's recognition, the campaign's scope, and the artist's leverage. That's precisely why brands have gravitated toward platform libraries as "free" alternatives. But free access under platform licenses doesn't create free commercial rights.
The ongoing litigation wave raises questions about platforms' role in the infringement epidemic. Platforms designed user experiences that make music integration effortless while building licensing frameworks that don't cover substantial categories of use. This disconnect isn't accidental—platforms benefit from branded content that drives engagement, and music makes content more engaging.
Several potential solutions could reduce brand confusion and liability:
Clearer interface restrictions could prevent business accounts from accessing non-commercial music entirely, rather than displaying it as available with technical workarounds.
In-app licensing verification could scan content before publishing and warn users when music isn't cleared for commercial use.
Transparent licensing indicators could show which songs are cleared for commercial use before users add them to content.
Streamlined commercial licensing could allow brands to purchase additional rights directly within platforms for broader music access.
However, platforms have limited incentives to implement these changes. Stricter enforcement would reduce the appeal of their ad platforms—brands want access to trending music to create compelling content. Meanwhile, legal liability falls on the brands using unlicensed music, not on the platforms facilitating that use.
From music rightsholders' perspective, the current system works perfectly. Platforms pay licensing fees for non-commercial use, generating guaranteed revenue. When brands use music commercially without additional licensing, rightsholders can pursue statutory damages up to $150,000 per work—often far exceeding what direct licensing would have cost.
Recent lawsuits suggest a coordinated enforcement strategy across major labels. Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group have all filed multiple suits against brands in various industries—retail, hospitality, food service, healthcare, education, and sports. These cases establish precedents, clarify legal standards, and send clear warnings to brands industry-wide.
Settlements in these cases likely include confidential terms but almost certainly involve substantial payments. Even when brands believe they have defensible positions, the cost of litigation and the risk of six- or seven-figure statutory damage awards make settlement economically rational. This dynamic encourages more enforcement actions, creating a lucrative litigation stream for music companies.
Some brands attempt to argue that short clips of music used in social media posts constitute "fair use"—a copyright exception allowing limited use of copyrighted works for purposes like criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, and scholarship. Fair use defenses rarely succeed in commercial social media contexts.
Courts apply a four-factor test to determine fair use, examining the purpose and character of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market for the original. Commercial use—especially marketing and advertising—weighs heavily against fair use. Using recognizable portions of songs (hooks, choruses) to make content more engaging directly competes with the music's commercial market.
USC attempted to raise fair use defenses against Sony Music's lawsuit, arguing that promotional videos for athletics programs served educational and news-reporting functions. However, courts have consistently held that using copyrighted music to promote ticket sales, merchandise, and brand engagement constitutes commercial use that fair use doesn't protect.
The dirty secret at the heart of social media music is simple: platforms profit from making unauthorized use easy, brands profit from the engagement unlicensed music generates, and music rightsholders profit from the resulting lawsuits. The only parties who don't profit are the brands that actually pay for proper licensing—making them, paradoxically, the ones playing the game correctly.
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.