For Brands, Using Music in Social Posts Has Never Been Riskier. Here’s How to Help Avoid Being Sued (Guest Column)

In recent years, social media platforms have become a key battleground for copyright infringement disputes, with music rights holders targeting brands that use copyrighted tracks in social media posts.

This development can be traced, in part, to increasingly sophisticated software that major music labels and publishers use to monitor infringing uses of their songs online — a reaction to the “whack-a-mole” frustration that rights holders feel when they consistently find their songs being used on the Internet without permission. And with the risk of potential statutory damage awards for copyright infringement ranging from $200 to $150,000 per infringed work, rights holders can hold significant leverage in any ensuing legal action. Thus, whether a brand is incorporating music into posts on its social media channels or partnering with influencers who do the same, using music on social media has never been riskier.  

Below, we examine the rising tide of recent lawsuits and other legal action taken against brands by music rightsholders and outline key takeaways to help avoid infringing uses and ensure that artists are properly compensated for their work.  

The Vital Pharmaceuticals Case   

In 2021, UMG Recordings sued Vital Pharmaceuticals, the parent company of Bang Energy, for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, alleging that videos posted by Bang and its influencers on TikTok used UMG’s copyrighted songs without permission. UMG argued that Bang was “well aware” that its conduct constituted copyright infringement because UMG had informed Bang of its unauthorized uses before bringing suit. UMG also argued that Bang had control over and financially benefited from its influencers’ infringing videos, which the influencers submitted to Bang for approval before posting.  

Bang denied any knowledge of infringement, arguing that TikTok’s standard music license covered Bang’s use of UMG’s music. The court disagreed and granted summary judgment on UMG’s claim for direct copyright infringement, holding that UMG did not authorize TikTok to permit end users, such as Bang, to use the music for commercial (as opposed to personal) purposes. The court reasoned that because direct liability for copyright infringement does not require proof of intent, Bang’s belief that TikTok gave it permission to use UMG’s music was, at most, relevant to the amount of damages Bang owed, not whether it was liable for copyright infringement in the first instance.

The court ruled against UMG, however, on its vicarious and contributory infringement theories related to Bang’s influencers, concluding that UMG failed to prove that Bang had input regarding the selection of music included in influencers’ videos and did not point to any evidence that Bang received a direct financial benefit from the influencers’ videos.    

The Growing Litigation Trend 

Since UMG v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, music rights holders have ramped up enforcement efforts against other brands. Sony Music Entertainment launched its own copyright infringement lawsuit against Bang (as did Warner Music Group) and also filed claims against brands such as Gymshark, OFRA Cosmetics, Marriott International and the University of Southern California. In each case, the brands, and/or the influencers they hired, allegedly used Sony-owned sound recordings in posts promoting the companies’ products or services. 

Similar to UMG’s argument in Vital Pharmaceuticals, Sony argued that each of the companies knew that their content infringed Sony’s copyrights prior to the lawsuits, and thus that the infringement was “willful,” entitling Sony to statutory damages as high as $150,000 per infringed work. In the Gymshark case, as in Vital Pharmaceuticals, it was alleged that Gymshark knew that the music was unlicensed because Gymshark previously approached Sony to discuss music licensing and then proceeded to use Sony’s music without securing commercial licenses. OFRA allegedly failed to take down infringing content after Sony sent a cease-and-desist letter and then posted new infringing content after learning of Sony’s claims. And Marriott allegedly did not take down its posts upon Sony’s request, was previously sued in 2021 for similar copyright infringement issue, and generally knew how to enter into music licenses.  

As in Vital Pharmaceuticals, Sony also brought claims against alleged infringers, such as Gymshark and OFRA, for contributory and vicarious liability based on their influencers’ infringing content. Most recently, Warner Music Group (WMG) sued Crumbl and Designer Brands Inc., the parent company of DSW Shoe Warehouse, under similar theories. 

While a number of these cases were just recently filed, and others ultimately settled out of court or appear to be moving towards settlement, there is no question that they are part of a fast-growing trend, and provide a glimpse into the mindset, and tactics, of rights holders with respect to unauthorized music use on social media platforms.  

Navigating Platform Music Licenses 

So what can brands do to avoid this type of legal action and ensure from the outset that artists are properly compensated for their copyrighted works? The best way to avoid copyright infringement when using music owned by a third party is, of course, to license the music directly from the third-party rights holders. This approach is often impractical, however, given the speed and volume with which brands need to publish content on social media.

Instead, many brands use music from the social media platforms’ respective “commercial music libraries” or “CMLs,” which contain different music options than those available for “personal” accounts. The CMLs, such as Meta’s Sound Collection and TikTok’s Commercial Music Library, allow companies and individuals to use music on the platform specifically for commercial purposes, so long as the brand also adheres to the platform’s other license terms.  

Using CMLs can pose challenges, however, especially with respect to registering “business” accounts within each platform. Even with the proper registration, it is not always clear which music within the different libraries’ business or commercial accounts can use, and the scope of those rights may (and do) change over time. There are, however, a number of strategies brands can use to help ensure they are using permitted music.  

For example, before using a platform’s CML, brands should review the CML’s terms of service and related policies, including terms that specify which commercial purposes the music can be used for and whether the songs can be used in videos on other platforms. It is equally important for brands to actively track the platforms’ evolving license terms in order to remain compliant. And for some brands, it may make sense to use software or external vendors to monitor and flag their brand and influencer posts for potential copyright violations across social media platforms. Of course, every brand’s business needs will be different. The key is finding the right combination of internal and external resources to help minimize the risk of copyright infringement.  

Conclusion  

The rising chorus of lawsuits from music rights holders is nothing to tune out. Brands using music as part of their social media strategies (which, practically speaking, is almost every brand) must take proactive steps to mitigate legal risks, and they will also be protecting artists’ rights in the process. This includes complying with and staying informed about changes to platform-specific licensing terms, ensuring that their influencers stay within the bounds of such terms, and considering tools to monitor, flag, and remove potentially infringing content. Failing to take these precautions can lead to costly litigation, reputational damage, and the forced removal of content. 

Sarah Moses is an entertainment litigation partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and focuses her practice on a variety of complex litigation and commercial disputes. She represents media, entertainment and technology clients in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, First Amendment, blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) matters, among others.

Monica Kulkarni is an advertising, marketing and media associate with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. She represents clients across a variety of industries and provides multidisciplinary legal counseling on transactional, compliance and regulatory matters in advertising, entertainment and media.

Jacob Geskin is a law clerk with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP based in the Firm’s New York office where he works across music, intellectual property and media law.

Related Images: