Sync copyright infringement: the enforcement fight is on!

1. The landscape: what’s going on?

In the age of ubiquitous digital content, music is more accessible than ever before. From Instagram Reels, Facebook posts and TikTok clips to brand-sponsored stories and YouTube ads, music underpins the emotional tone of many social media communications.

For brands, using popular music tracks in social media posts has become an almost reflexive marketing tool. This synchronisation of video content into audio content is called, in the music business, ‟synchronisation”, ‟synch” or ‟sync”, for short. However, this surge in music usage has led to a worrying trend: widespread and often unlicensed use of copyrighted musical works, particularly by brands seeking to amplify their reach, in social media videos.

What seems like a harmless 15-second clip can in fact constitute an act of copyright and neighbouring rights infringement.

Indeed, sync copyright infringement refers to the unauthorised use of music in timed relation with visual content (e.g., videos, advertisements, social media posts). This area of law sits at the intersection of copyright, commercial licencing, and digital content distribution.

Many brands assume that simply purchasing a platform licence (such as a TikTok or Meta business account) is sufficient to cover all legal bases, i.e. that they will also automatically get a synchronisation licence relating to their use of music accessible from the music libraries of those social media platforms.

But these social media platform licences never extend to the commercial use of music in brand-driven campaigns or to synch rights for promotional posts. This is clearly explained by Meta in its Instagram terms of use on its webpages ‟Access to the licenced music library on Instagram”, ‟What audio you can use in your reel on Instagram” and ‟How to make sure that content you post to Instagram or Threads doesn’t violate copyright law”. Meta is also crystal clear in its Facebook terms of use on its webpage ‟Music Guidelines”. Similarly, TikTok has some ‟Music terms of service” and ‟Commercial music library – user terms”, complimented by the webpage ‟Commercial use of music on TikTok”, which clearly set out that music users must secure a prior licence from the rightsowners if they want to use a music track for commercial use in their TikTok video content.

So, what are those brands missing doing in this synchronisation process? They are not securing a sync licence prior to using the music track for commercial purposes on their social media platforms! So what is a synchronisation licence?

A synchronisation licence (commonly called a sync licence) is a contractual agreement that allows the user (typically a video producer or brand) to use a copyrighted musical composition in timed relation to moving images. This licence is typically required from:

the owner of the musical composition (usually a music publisher or songwriter); and

the owner of the sound recording (usually a record label or artist), if the original recording is used.

Using a copyrighted song without such permission constitutes infringement under UK, French, EU, and international copyright law.

Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‟CDPA 1988”), unauthorised use of a copyrighted work—such as reproduction, communication to the public, or making available online—can trigger civil liability for:

Infringement of the musical composition (section 16 and 20 CDPA 1988);

Infringement of the sound recording, if the master is used (section 16 and 20 CDPA 1988), and

Moral rights violations (where applicable).

Similar provisions apply under the French intellectual property code (code de la propriété intellectuelle or ‟CPI”), in particular:

Article L.122-4 CPI – General Principle of Authorisation which provides ‟Toute représentation ou reproduction intégrale ou partielle faite sans le consentement de l’auteur ou de ses ayants droit ou ayants cause est illicite.” This is the foundational article stating that any use (reproduction or performance) of a protected work without the rightsowner’s consent is unlawful;

Article L.122-2 CPI – Right of Representation . This grants authors the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit public performance or communication of their work, including broadcast via digital means such as social media or video platforms;

Article L.122-3 CPI – Right of Reproduction. This covers the fixation of a work on any medium, including synchronisation with video (e.g., embedding a song in an Instagram or TikTok reel);

Article L.335-2 CPI – Civil and Criminal Sanctions for Infringement. This article sets out the penalties for infringement, which may include:
Civil damages;
Injunctive relief;
In some cases, criminal penalties (up to 3 years in prison and a €300,000 fine for counterfeiting);

Article L.213-1 CPI – Neighbouring Rights for Phonogram Producers. When the original recording is used (not just the composition), this provision protects the rights of the record producer or label. They must also authorise any sync use, and

Article L.216-1 CPI – Neighbouring Rights for Performers. Similarly, performers must authorise any fixation and communication of their performance as used in the recording.

Similar provisions apply throughout EU Member States under the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC).

Yet, brands very often overlook reading these music terms of use from their social media platform of choice, let alone the provisions from the intellectual property acts or codes which apply in their jurisdictions, before impulsively posting commercial videos synchronised with music tracks such brands find in the music libraries of such social media platform.

The result? A growing number of infringements that threaten the economic livelihood of rightsholders, including music publishers, record labels, and independent artists.

Sync copyright infringement is increasingly common on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, where businesses use trending music to promote products. Often, businesses mistakenly believe that:

Music made “available” via Meta or TikTok’s internal library is free to use for commercial purposes; or

“Removing” the post cures the prior infringement.

These are misconceptions. As explained above, most social media platforms only secure limited end-user rights, not full commercial sync rights. Use by a brand or company for promotional content—particularly if reposted or boosted—is always outside the scope of any platform licence.

2. How music rightsholders are fighting back

In response to this systemic misuse, music rightsholders are increasingly taking structured legal steps to enforce their rights. Many have implemented monitoring systems, employing tech tools and legal advisors to detect unauthorised uses of their repertoire on social media platforms.

When infringements are identified, the standard course of action is to issue a formal letter before court action. These letters typically outline the nature of the copyright, moral right and neighbouring rights infringement, the relevant legal framework (such as unauthorised reproduction, communication to the public, or making available rights), and the rightsholders’ expectations—usually an immediate takedown request of the infringing reel or post, failing which the righsholders will request a court injunction, and a settlement offer that covers past damages, a penalty fee for not securing a synch licence prior to publishing the social media content online, and secures undertakings for the future.

Some rightsholders offer structured licencing agreements to resolve the matter amicably. Others propose one-time settlements, depending on the scope and gravity of the unauthorised use. The emphasis is often on resolution before litigation, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rul es and practice direction on pre-action conduct and protocols in the United Kingdom, which make pre-action conduct compulsory, and with the provisions of article 750-1 of the French civil procedural code (for disputes where the value of the claim is equal to, or below, 5,000 euros).

Indeed, rightsowners may pursue:

Damages or an account of profits;

Injunctions (to restrain further use);

Public retractions or acknowledgements;

Recovery of legal costs, particularly in UK proceedings under the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (‟IPEC”) Small Claims or Multi-Track or in French proceedings under the competent ‟tribunal judiciaire”, and

Settlement negotiations through letters before action.

Failing to engage with formal legal requests—e.g., cease and desist letters—can escalate matters rapidly, exposing infringers to increased liability and costs.

However, as the next section explores, these attempts to settle out of court in pre-action conduct are not always successful, most of the time because the infringing brand refuses to take responsibility and acknowledge their acts of infringement.

3. When settlement fails: the sync copyright infringement litigation route

While many brands respond constructively to legal notices, others adopt delaying tactics, make derisory offers, or fail to engage altogether. In such instances, rightsholders are left with no option but to litigate.

In the United States, high-profile cases such as UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2022 illustrate that courts take a dim view of wilful infringement on commercial social media posts. This case UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (S.D. Fla., No. 22-cv-61116, judgment entered 21 July 2022) is widely considered to be the first U.S. federal court case in which damages were awarded for synchronisation copyright infringement in social media posts. Here are the key details of this lawsuit:

Defendant: Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (maker of the drink ‟Bang Energy”)

Plaintiffs: Universal Music Group Recordings and other record labels

Claims: Use of copyrighted sound recordings in TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube videos without sync licences

Damages Awarded: Over USD $20 million by jury verdict

Legal Basis: Infringement of sound recordings via unauthorised synchronisation to visual content in social media advertising.

This case marked the first time a U.S. court formally awarded substantial statutory damages for sync infringement in a digital/social media context, setting a precedent that sync licencing must be obtained even for short clips embedded in commercial or branded social content.

It has since been cited in newer U.S. litigation (such as the below-mentioned Sony v Marriott and UMG v Chili’s cases) to underline the legal and financial risks of using music without proper synchronisation clearance online.

Other notable lawsuits relating to sync copyright infringement, in the US, are:

Sony Music Entertainment v Marriott International Inc: complaint dated 17 May 2024; key claims are unlicensed synchronisation of music in social media content (Instagram, TikTok)by Marriott hotels; relief sought was up to USD150,000 per infringement work, total claim could have exceeded USD100 million; outcome: case settled and dismissed with prejudice in October 2024;

Universal Music Group v Brinker International (owner restaurant chain Chili’s): filing on 8 October 2024; key claims are 80 alleged infringements (38 sound recordings + 42 publishing rights) used in social media ads; relief sought was statutory damages up to USD12 million; outcome: case settlement in May 2025 out of court;

Warner Music Group v Crumbl LLC: filing on 22 April 2025; key claims are unlicensed use of 159 WGM tracks on Instagram and TikTok; relief sought: statutory damages up to USD23.85 million;

Sony Music Entertainment v University of Southern California (‟USC”): filing on 11 March 2025; key claims are 283 unauthorised social media posts using 170 Sony-owned songs across USC’s athletic accounts; relief sought is up to USD42.45 million in statutory damages, and

Warner Music Group v Designer Shoe Warehouse (‟DSW”): filing on 1 May 2025; key claims are the use of over 200 WMG recordings and compositions on TikTok and Instagram posts; relief sought are statutory damages of up to USD30 million.

In the UK, the IPEC has become a preferred forum for music-related IP enforcement, especially under its Small Claims Track, which allows music companies to pursue claims efficiently and cost-effectively. While UK case law specifically on sync copyright infringement is not as developed or high-profile as in the U.S., there are several legal principles and cases from the High Court and IPEC that address unauthorised use of music in audiovisual content, including in advertising, social media, and corporate videos. Here’s an overview:

Kennard v Lewis [1983] FSR 346 (Ch D): context: Use of music without permission in a corporate promotional film; held: synchronisation of music to video constitutes a new reproduction, and therefore requires a licence from the copyright owner; significance: One of the first UK cases to explicitly recognise sync use as a separate act of infringement;

Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565: Although not a sync case per se, the court of appeal confirmed that use of music in a fixed recording (even with minor changes) required specific authorisation, reinforcing that new uses of musical works create new rights implications;

Bourne v Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising Ltd (unreported, 1996): Background: Use of a song in a UK TV commercial without clearance; Held: Sync use in broadcast advertising was not covered by general performing rights; a separate sync licence was required; Note: This case is not widely reported but is referenced in industry guidance by MCPS and PRS, and

Sheeran v Chokri [2022] EWHC 827 (Ch): Not sync-related directly, but underscores the UK court’s willingness to examine musical copyright nuances in depth, especially when used in derivative or hybrid media like audio-visual content.

In France, while no fully published decisions have yet confirmed substantial damages awarded by the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris specifically for unauthorised synchronisation of music on social platforms, i.e. sync copyright infringement, French music rightsholders—often through SACEM and other collective management organisations—are increasingly enforcing their rights against influencers and brands who use protected works in Instagram, Facebook and TikTok posts without licences.

German courts, too, have a track record of enforcing copyright and neighbouring rights robustly, especially under the Urheberrechtsgesetz (German copyright law).

These cases establish a key principle: once infringement is established and settlement fails, courts will not hesitate to impose financial and reputational consequences.

4. Practical guidance for brands and rightsholders with respect to sync copyright infringement

For brands:

Always obtain proper licences before using music in any social media content, even if it’s a short clip;

Consult legal counsel to understand the distinction between personal use, editorial use, and commercial use;

Never assume that platform licences cover all uses—check the fine print;

Identify infringing content: audit all social platforms to see if music is used and whether licences were obtained or wrongly assumed;

Licence or remove immediately: if you want to continue using a track, obtain a full commercial sync licence. If not, take content down;

Respond promptly to letters: refusal to respond may lead to litigation. Even a limited reply (e.g., acknowledging receipt, offering to remedy) is better than radio silence;

Consider negotiated settlement: rightsholders’ letters cap settlement cost. By contrast, statutory damages—if sued—could be much higher, and

Seek legal advice early: especially under UK or EU frameworks, harmonising your defence (fair dealing/exception) can be challenging if the purpose was commercial and audio use substantial.

For rightsholders:

Maintain robust documentation of ownership and registration;

Set up consistent monitoring of social media platforms using keyword and audio fingerprinting tools and monitor usage actively across platforms and jurisdictions;

Issue well-drafted letters before court action outlining claims, remedies, and deadlines for response, where such cease-and-desist letters are concise, legally grounded, and commercially reasonable;

Engage counsel familiar with media law and IP enforcement, and

Be prepared to escalate to litigation if settlement efforts are ignored or unreasonably delayed.

Ultimately, in a digital economy where content is currency, respecting intellectual property rights is not just a legal obligation—it’s a mark of ethical and professional conduct, especially for brands who are so aware of their reputation and clout.