Business Liability for Music Copyright Infringement

I hear from a lot of social media teams that they “ask for forgiveness, not permission” to use songs that they don’t have the rights to on TikTok and Instagram. Turns out forgiveness is expensive. Last week, UMG sued Quince for copyright infringement for including unlicensed music in Instagram and TikTok posts. While I’ve talked about brands being sued by music labels before, this one is interesting because it also holds the brand responsible for sponsored influencer posts that use unlicensed music. UMG has identified a whopping 130 works infringed by Quince. The exposure in statutory damages alone is over $20M. I asked marketing lawyer Rob Freund what brands should take away from this lawsuit: “The Quince case is the latest in a string of cases against brands using unlicensed popular songs on social media, both on brand-owned pages and via influencers. The takeaway is that brands cannot use the general popular music libraries that the platforms provide for any commercial content (which includes any posting on brand-owned pages) and cannot treat influencer content as a copyright safe harbor. The platform licenses do not extend to commercial use, unless you use the designated commercial sound libraries. Any brand running a creator program needs a music licensing strategy and clear contractual guardrails for its influencers.”

That trending audio on your brand’s Instagram or TikTok might cost you millions. 💸 #PexPartner $24M, $30M, $130M… these are just a few of the amounts brands have faced in lawsuits for using copyrighted music in social posts on their accounts and the accounts of their creator partners without proper licensing. Here’s what’s happening: Music is the backbone of social content. 85% of TikToks and 84% of YouTube videos include at least 10 seconds of music. For regular users, adding a trending song is easy and encouraged. But, for brands? It’s a legal minefield. The moment content promotes a product or service—whether in organic posts, ads, or influencer campaigns—it’s commercial use. That requires separate licensing, even if the song is in the platform’s library. And it gets more complex: 🎵 Platform licensing is inconsistent: A track cleared for TikTok might not be cleared on Instagram. 📱 Rights can expire without notice, turning compliant posts into violations overnight. 🤝 Creator partnerships add risk: Sponsored content using copyrighted music makes brands liable. 👥 Employee advocacy programs create exposure: That company update video with a trending song? Still an infringement risk. 🔄 Reposting is risky: Even resharing creator or user-generated content with unlicensed music can create liability. Rights holders are tracking violations and can enforce them months or years later. That viral post that cracked the algorithm? It can vanish overnight, along with all its reach and engagement. So what can brands do? ✅ Audit regularly: Review all content, including creator posts, for music rights violations. ✅ Establish clear guidelines for music use in campaigns. ✅ Educate teams and partners on the difference between personal and commercial use. ✅ Implement approval workflows: Review every piece of content for cleared music rights before publishing. ✅ Provide pre-cleared options for creators and teams. ✅ Maintain a database of licensed tracks for campaigns. ✅ When in doubt, don’t use it. I did a deep dive into why more brands are coming under fire for misuse of music and how brands can protect themselves, including leveraging tech solutions like Pex, as we increasingly move toward a social- and creator-first marketing world. Get the full breakdown in the newsletter, including how you can get a  free copyright check from Pex. 👇🏾

What's the risk of using copyrighted music in organic brand content? Today, Atlantic and Warner sued Crumbl for infringement for including unlicensed music in IG and TikTok posts. If music is part of your brand's (or its influencers') social strategy, read this. Crumbl allegedly infringed the labels' copyrights by posting the videos to its own pages. But they're also in trouble for music used in influencer posts (Pic 2). This case should be a wake-up call to any brand that thinks "organic" content is not advertising and is safer than paid ads. It's also a good reminder that brands may be liable for content created by influencers—even if their connection is only through "gifting." Assuming the maximum statutory damages available for willful infringement under the Copyright Act, because Crumbl allegedly infringed "at least 159" songs, it faces ~$23.8M in damages here. Bonus: perhaps the dumbest thing Crumbl did was make a post that admitted "legal said we can't use any trending audios," effectively conceding willfulness (Pic 3).

In today’s digital-first world, brands rely heavily on content to engage audiences, generate buzz, and build a strong online presence. One of the most powerful tools in content creation is music—it evokes emotions, enhances storytelling, and resonates deeply with consumers. However, while music is essential for brand marketing, its use comes with legal responsibilities. Unauthorized use of copyrighted music can lead to legal action, financial penalties, and reputational damage. This is why music licensing is crucial for brands in Nigeria.  Brand-Generated Content vs. User-Generated Content  A key distinction must be made between "brand-generated content" and "user-generated content (UGC)". UGC consists of content created by everyday social media users, such as dance challenges or vlogs, where platforms like TikTok and YouTube have licensing agreements allowing free music usage. However, brand-generated content—including advertisements, influencer marketing, and corporate campaigns—is created for commercial purposes and requires synchronization licenses (sync licenses) to legally incorporate music.  The Role of Sync Licenses in Brand Content  A sync license grants permission to use copyrighted music in visual media, including commercials, promotional videos, and social media ads. Without proper licensing, brands and influencers risk copyright infringement claims. For example, if a beverage company uses a hit Afrobeat track in a TikTok ad, it must first obtain the necessary permissions from the music rights holders. Similarly, influencers who feature music in sponsored content must ensure they have the appropriate clearance.  The Risks of Unlicensed Music Usage  Global cases highlight the risks of unauthorized music use. In 2019, Peloton faced a $150 million lawsuit for using unlicensed music in workout videos. Influencers who feature music in brand-sponsored content without a license also risk legal consequences, as they are producing commercial content on behalf of brands.  Who Needs Music Licensing?  Music licensing is not just for large corporations. In Nigeria, the following entities must obtain proper licenses when using copyrighted music for commercial purposes: - Brands & Corporate Organizations – Using music in promotional campaigns and advertisements. - Influencers & Content Creators – Featuring music in paid collaborations or sponsored posts. - Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) – Incorporating music in advocacy campaigns or fundraising efforts. - Event Organizers – Using music in trailers and promotional content.

🚨 Important Advisory for all DJs & Entertainment Stakeholders! 🚨 The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), under the leadership of its Director-General, Dr. John Asein, has issued a stern caution to Disc Jockeys (DJs) regarding the public performance of music. It's crucial for every DJ to understand that playing music owned by others publicly without proper licensing or authorization from #copyright holders is a serious offense under Nigerian law. Today's #IPSERIES dives into frequently asked questions about copyright and intellectual property as it applies to musical works, sound recordings, and public performance. What #DJs Need to Know: 1. Licensing is NOT optional: The Copyright Act 2022 grants exclusive rights to copyright owners to reproduce, perform, or communicate their work to the public. Engaging in these acts without authorization is an infringement. 2. Public Performance Defined: Whether you're playing at hotels, event centers, clubs, gardens, or recreational facilities, your music performance constitutes both a public performance and a communication to the public. 3. Approved CMO: For musical works and sound recordings in Nigeria, the approved Collective Management Organization (CMO) is the Musical Copyright Society Nigeria (MCSN). DJs are advised to obtain the necessary licenses and pay royalties through MCSN. The Disc Jockeys' Association of Nigeria (DJAN) even has a MoU with MCSN to facilitate this. 4. Serious Penalties: Non-compliance can lead to prosecution with potential penalties including a fine of up to N1 million or a five-year prison sentence upon conviction by a court. This goes to show that #NCC is committed to ensuring that music creators receive fair compensation for their work and will work with enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute violators. With the #worldipday theme focus on #IP and #Music, it is important that we develop a culture that respects #IntellectualPropertyrights and build a sustainable entertainment industry. Get licensed, stay compliant! #CopyrightLaw #MusicBusiness #NigerianDJs #EntertainmentLaw #NCCNigeria #DrJohnAsein #PublicPerformance #RoyaltyPayments #MCSN #DJAN

It is great to see music labels actively pursuing the issue of unauthorized use of music by brands on social media platforms across jurisdictions. Warner Music Group’s recent lawsuit against Designer Shoe Warehouse covers alleged infringement of over 200 works across TikTok and Instagram posts. [Link: https://lnkd.in/dgQceKP8 ] Just last week, I had the opportunity to share my thoughts with Economic Times on this very issue. [Link: https://lnkd.in/dh5guuiQ ] Closer home, last month also saw Sony Music Entertainment dragging Myntra to the Bombay High Court for unauthorised use of copyrighted content. [Link: https://lnkd.in/dA2n3U-z ] I’ve been receiving several queries on this issue. To break it down simply: if you are a brand and wish to use copyrighted music in a commercial video or promotional material—including influencer-led content on Reels or TikTok (in jurisdictions where it is not banned)—such usage is not free and is not typically covered under the blanket licensing arrangements between the platform and music labels/PROs. You would need to see the guidelines of the respective platform. The platform guidelines, which are often overlooked, typically state: “Ads may not contain content that violates the intellectual property rights of any third party, including copyright, trademark or other legal rights” and “Use of music for commercial or non-personal purposes in particular is prohibited unless you have obtained appropriate licenses.” (See these links for reference: https://lnkd.in/dUirfiph or https://lnkd.in/d_AdW8F2 ) In the absence of technological protection measures/ automatic filters (which the platforms should ideally provide), it becomes all the more important for brands to ensure that they procure adequate synchronization licences from the copyright owner/right holders and pay royalties in accordance with applicable laws. #Copyright #MusicLicensing #SocialMediaCompliance #EntertainmentLaw #IPR #SyncLicensing #BrandsAndMusic

Judgment in REX OWUSU MARFO (aka ‘REX OMAR’) v JOY INDUSTRIES LTD… continued “Respondent also tendered into evidence Exhibit Y, a copy of the notation, lyrical progression, arrangement of the words, and melodic pattern of Exhibit N. Furthermore, he tendered Exhibit Z, a copy of the notation, lyrical progression, arrangement of the works, the melodic pattern of Exhibit Q. All these showed to the satisfaction of the trial court and to me that the structure, substance and form of the two works were the same, meaning that the appellant reproduced and used part of the Respondent's work for its advertisement for commercial purposes. Clearly, the fundamental finding by the trial court that the appellant reproduced the respondent's work deserves support as the preponderate evidence before the trial court shows that the lyrical progression, notation, melody etc. in Exhibit Q is nothing short of reproduction of Exhibit N. This finding is amply supported by Exhibits Y and Z. There was an issue as to the relevancy or otherwise of the copyright holder earnings from his work as basis for claim for damages where there is an infringement of the copyright. I must say right from the onset that it is not relevant in a copyright claim to show how much money a right owner had earned from his work. The fact that a right owner had not made money from a particular work does not mean anyone can violate his copyright in that work. In fact, whether or not the Respondent was ever paid any royalties any time his song or the songs on his album were played cannot be a determining factor to consider as far as the infringement of his copyright was concerned. Similarly, whether or not the Respondent made sales from the song or the album cannot be a factor to consider in determining the violation of his copyright. Furthermore, at paragraph 911 of HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, 4TH EDITION at page 586, reference is made to the cases of MANSELL v VALLEY PRINTING CO. (1908) 2 CH 441 at 445, C.A., per Cozens-Hardy MR and FRANCIS DAY AND HUNTER LTD. v. BRON (1963) (supra) and the point was made that in copyright cases ‘the fact that the defendant acted innocently is no defence, for copyright is a proprietary right, and, if it is invaded, the element of motive or intention on the part of the defendant is wholly irrelevant.’ It therefore bears emphasis that once a case of infringement of copyright is established, the right owner is entitled to damages per se, without proof of damages. That is not to say that if the right owner has suffered any particular special damage, he cannot sue for special damages, in which case the law, both substantive and procedural, would require him to particularize and prove same specifically. The emphasis is that proof of damages in the case of infringement of copyright is not a requirement.” #LegalWowMoment

A recent raid on two entertainment centres in Penang for copyright infringement highlights the serious consequences businesses face when using copyrighted works without proper authorization. The raid was carried out by KPDN, in cooperation with the Recording Industry Association of Malaysia (RIM), following complaints from copyright holders. Under Section 41(1) of the Copyright Act 1987, copyright infringement is a criminal offense. If found guilty, businesses can face: 1. Fines: Between RM2,000 and RM20,000 for each infringing copy; 2. Imprisonment: Up to 5 years; or 3. Both Fines and Imprisonment for severe cases. This case is a clear example of how collaboration between enforcement bodies and copyright holders can lead to significant legal actions. To avoid these consequences, businesses should ensure they have proper licenses for any copyrighted materials they use. Respecting intellectual property rights isn’t just about compliance—it’s about fostering a culture that values and protects creativity and innovation. #YALaw #Copyright #KPDN #RIM

Peloton's $370 million wake-up call. Is your studio next? We can all agree  That your studio's music choices Influence your clients' experience. But…That killer playlist?  Might kill your business. In 2019, Peloton was accused of  Infringing thousands of songs  By not obtaining proper sync licenses. Resulting in a massive legal battle  And a $49.3M settlement in legal costs. Many new studios overlook music licensing.  Thinking streaming services cover them. SPOILER ALERT: They don't. Why It’s Important: → Playing music in studios = public performance → Requires licenses from PROs (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) → Streaming services don't cover commercial use WHAT YOU CAN DO: → Audit your music usage → Obtain proper licenses  → (Costs vary by studio size) → Consider royalty-free alternatives The Bottom Line: → Annual licensing fees < $2/day (ASCAP's lowest rate) → Potential fines: $750 - $150,000 per infringement Don't let your playlist become a liability. Invest in proper licensing. It's a small price for peace of mind and legal compliance. #boutiquefitness #fitness #fitnessindustry #fitnesstrends #innovation

AI is disrupting a lot of industries. Music licensing is one of them. I was on the phone with a large enterprise customer who was planning to churn. They love our music and our service. But their team wanted to switch to an AI music generation tool. So I asked a simple question: “Have you reviewed the licensing implications for commercial use?” Silence. I followed up: Do you know how the model was trained? Do you have indemnification if there is a copyright claim? Are you protected if the output resembles someone else’s work? To their credit, they paused and brought in legal. A few days later, they called back and decided to stay. Not because AI is bad. But because they realized they had not fully evaluated the risk. AI is powerful. But in enterprise environments, power without protection becomes liability. If you are experimenting with AI-generated music or content, make sure you understand: -Training data exposure -Commercial usage rights -Indemnification coverage Innovation matters. So does due diligence. The companies that win will take both seriously. Our commercial-use music library is built for enterprise protection with clear rights, real artists, and real indemnification. Check it out: https://lnkd.in/efWhpP7U #AI #EnterpriseLeadership #MarketingStrategy #Copyright #RiskManagement #MusicIndustry #Innovation