Frequently Asked Questions – Music Licensing

General Music Licensing Questions

What is music licensing?

Music licensing is obtaining legal permission to use a copyrighted piece of music.
In essence, a music license grants you the rights to include someone else’s music in your project under specific terms. When music is copyrighted, you can’t legally use it (in a video, film, game, etc.) without the copyright owner’s consent. A license is that consent in a written agreement. It specifies how you can use the music (for example, in a film or online video), for how long, and any other conditions. By securing a music license, you avoid infringing on the artist’s copyright and ensure the creators are properly compensated for the use of their work.

Why do I need a music license?

Using music without a license risks copyright infringement, which can lead to legal and financial consequences.
Copyright law gives music creators exclusive rights to their work. If you use music without permission, you violate those rights and could face serious repercussions. The copyright holder (like the artist, record label, or publisher) can demand that your content be taken down, sue for infringement damages, or both. In many cases, the cost of a lawsuit or settlement is far higher than what a license would have cost. Beyond legal risks, licensing is also about fairness – it ensures the songwriters and artists get paid when you use their music. In short, if you plan to use music you didn’t create, obtaining a license protects you from lawsuits and respects the creator’s rights.

What does a music license allow me to do?

A music license gives you defined rights to use a song in specific ways without infringing copyright.
When you license a song, the agreement will spell out exactly what you’re allowed to do with the music. For example, a license might allow you to play a song in the background of a YouTube video, include it in a film soundtrack, or use it as hold music for your business. The license makes it legal to perform, reproduce, or synchronize the music in your project according to the terms given. It’s essentially the copyright owner saying, “I give you permission to use my music for X purpose, under Y conditions.” Keep in mind that a license is limited – using the music outside the agreed scope (different project, extended time, another territory, etc.) would not be covered and could require another license.

What’s the difference between owning a song and licensing it?

Buying a song (like an MP3 or CD) gives you personal listening rights, whereas licensing gives you permission to use the music in a project.
When you buy a song from iTunes, a CD, or a streaming subscription, you own a copy for personal enjoyment – but you do not own the underlying copyright. Personal purchase does not include the right to re-use the music in videos, podcasts, or other productions (). Think of it this way: buying a book doesn’t let you copy its text into your own published work, and similarly, buying a song doesn’t let you copy or synchronize it into a new video or public presentation. To use music beyond private listening, you must license it. Licensing is essentially renting the rights for a new use (like background music in a video). In summary, owning a song = listening privilege, licensing a song = usage privilege in a new context.

What is the difference between royalty-free and rights-managed music?

Royalty-free music is licensed with a one-time fee for broad use, whereas rights-managed music licenses are tailored to specific uses, with fees varying by factors like where, how, and how long you use the music.
With royalty-free music, you typically pay a single license fee once and can then use the music as long as the license allows (often indefinitely) without paying additional royalties each time. “Royalty-free” does not mean “no copyright” – it just means the royalty payments to the artist are handled upfront or by the library, so you don’t have to pay each time the music is played. In contrast, rights-managed music (sometimes just called a traditional license) usually involves a custom license for a specific project. The cost might depend on the medium (film, TV, web, etc.), the geographic territory, duration of use, audience size, and so on. For example, a rights-managed license might grant you usage of a song in a one-time TV commercial airing in one country for 3 months – if you want to use the same song in a web video or beyond 3 months, you’d negotiate a new license. Rights-managed licenses are more restrictive but can be tailored precisely to a project’s needs, whereas royalty-free licenses are more general-purpose once purchased.

What does “royalty-free music” mean?

“Royalty-free” means you pay a single fee (or no fee) for a music license and are not required to pay ongoing royalties for each use, under the terms of that license.
In a royalty-free license model, once you’ve paid the initial licensing fee (or obtained the track through a subscription or free library), you can use the music in your project without owing additional money every time it plays. This is in contrast to traditional licensing where you might owe the copyright owner a royalty each time the music is broadcast or reproduced. However, royalty-free does not mean the music is free of copyright. You still need to obtain the license to use it; it’s just that the license’s fee structure is simplified. Royalty-free licenses typically allow unlimited use in certain contexts, but read the terms – some royalty-free licenses may still limit how the music can be used (for example, requiring attribution, or restricting use in mass broadcast). The key point is that you won’t have to keep paying royalties beyond the initial fee as long as you abide by the license terms.

What is rights-managed music?

Rights-managed music is music licensed on a per-use basis, with the fee and conditions custom-tailored to your specific usage.
In a rights-managed license, you negotiate permission each time you want to use a track in a new way. The license will specify details like which exact project the music can be used in, the distribution medium (TV, film, online, etc.), the territory (e.g. North America only), and the time frame (e.g. one-year license) for that use. The cost depends on those details – using a song in a big national TV ad will cost more than in a local event, for example. If you later want to use the same song in a different project or extend your usage, you’ll need to secure a new license or renew the existing one. Rights-managed licensing gives the copyright owner control to charge based on the value and scope of each use. For the user, it means you pay only for what you need, but it requires careful negotiations and often higher fees for broader usage. This model is common for popular commercial music and soundtrack licensing, where each usage is unique.

Do I need permission to use any part of a song I didn’t create?

Yes. Any recognizable part of a copyrighted song – no matter how short – requires permission or a license to use legally.
There’s a common myth that using just a few seconds of a song is “okay” or automatically fair use, but that’s false . Copyright covers the musical composition and recording, even if you only use a small snippet. Unless the portion is truly unrecognizable or de minimis (a very rare and case-specific situation), using a part of a song without licensing can still infringe copyright. This includes using a beat, a riff, a chorus line, or any sample from the song. In practice, there is no set number of seconds that is “safe” to use without permission. So whether it’s 3 seconds or 30 seconds, if it’s someone else’s copyrighted music, you should assume you need a license for that portion. The safest course is to always get permission from the rights holders or use genuinely license-free music for even small clips.

Are there any situations where I don’t need a music license?

A few narrow scenarios allow music use without a license – such as public domain music, certain educational or religious uses, and very limited “fair use” cases – but these are the exception, not the rule.

• Public domain music: If a piece of music is truly in the public domain (meaning its copyright has expired or it was never copyrighted), it can be used without permission. However, be cautious: while old compositions (e.g., Beethoven) may be public domain, a specific recording of that composition (e.g., an orchestra’s performance recorded in 2020) is likely copyrighted by the recording owner. Only the underlying composition is free to use (you could perform it yourself or use a public domain recording).
• Educational classroom or religious service: U.S. copyright law provides an exemption for face-to-face teaching activities at a nonprofit educational institution and for performances during religious services. This means a school teacher can play or perform a song in class for teaching, or a church can sing/play music during a service, without a license. Important: This exemption is limited – it doesn’t cover recording that music or broadcasting it beyond the classroom/church. For example, livestreaming a church service with music or including a song in a recorded lecture video would not be exempt.
• Fair use: Fair use of copyrighted music (without a license) is possible but very limited. It might apply if you are using the music in a transformative way for purposes like criticism, commentary, or parody of the music itself. For instance, a 10-second clip analyzed in a music review could be fair use. But using music as background entertainment in a project is generally not fair use. Fair use is determined by four factors (purpose, nature, amount, effect on market) and is judged case-by-case – it’s not a guaranteed free pass and often doesn’t cover using music in the way most creators want (like backing a montage).
   Aside from these scenarios, assume you need a license. If you’re unsure, it’s safest to err on the side of licensing or consult a legal expert, because mistakenly assuming you don’t need a license can lead to infringement trouble.

What is public domain music?

Public domain music is music that is not protected by copyright, meaning anyone can use it freely without needing a license.
A musical work enters the public domain typically when its copyright term has expired. For example, many classical compositions by composers like Mozart or Beethoven are in the public domain because their authors died centuries ago (and the copyright term of life plus a number of years has lapsed). If a song is truly public domain, you can use, perform, and even record it without permission or paying royalties. However, there are two important considerations:

• Composition vs. Recording: A composition (the melody/lyrics written by the composer) may be public domain, but a specific sound recording of a performance of that composition can still be copyrighted. If you use a public domain piece, you might need to perform/record it yourself or find a public domain recording. For instance, Beethoven’s sheet music is free to use, but a 1990 recording of a Beethoven symphony by an orchestra is not free – you’d need permission from whoever owns that recording.
• Verifying public domain status: Copyright terms vary by country, but in the US, as a rule of thumb, any music published before 1928 is in the public domain (as of 2025; this date advances each year). Music published later can also be public domain if the copyright wasn’t renewed or if the rights were explicitly dedicated to the public domain. Always verify with reliable sources (like the U.S. Copyright Office or databases) whether a piece is truly public domain. Some works that might seem old enough (early 20th-century songs, for example) could still be under copyright until a certain year.
   In summary, public domain music is a great resource because it’s free and legal to use without a license – just ensure both the composition and the specific performance/recording you use are public domain.

How can I tell if a song is in the public domain?

Determining public domain status can be tricky – it depends on the publication date, the country’s laws, and whether copyrights were properly renewed (for older works).
Here are some guidelines to help:

• Publication date: In the United States, any work first published before 1928 is now in the public domain. This cutoff year increases annually (for example, works from 1928 will enter the public domain in 2024, and so on). If a song was published before this cutoff, it’s likely public domain in the U.S. (assuming it had a copyright that wasn’t extended by later law changes).
• Author’s death date: In many countries outside the U.S., a common standard is life of the author plus 70 years. So if a composer died more than 70 years ago, their compositions are likely public domain in those countries. For example, a composer who died in 1940 would have their works enter public domain around 2010 in a life+70 regime. (The U.S. uses a different system for corporate works and had life+70 for individual authors after 1978, but older works follow different rules.)
• Public domain databases: Consult resources like the Public Domain Information Project, or databases from libraries and archives. Some organizations list known public domain songs. The U.S. Copyright Office doesn’t label what’s public domain directly, but they have records of registrations which can help for edge cases.
• Caution with “old” songs: Don’t assume that just because a song sounds old or the artist is deceased that it’s public domain. For example, songs by many early 20th-century songwriters (1930s, 1940s) may still be under copyright if the rights haven’t expired or were extended by law. Always verify by the dates.
• Foreign works: Remember that copyright laws differ. A song public domain in one country might still be protected in another if the country has a longer term or different rules. If your project will be seen globally, make sure the song is public domain everywhere you distribute, or at least in the major markets.
   In short, confirm the publication year and author’s death date. If it’s borderline, consult a copyright expert or use an authoritative chart (like Cornell University’s copyright duration chart) to be sure. When in doubt, it’s safer to assume a song is not public domain unless you have clear evidence that it is.

What is Creative Commons music and can I use it freely?

Creative Commons music is music offered under a specific license by the creator that gives permission in advance for certain uses – but you must follow the license terms.
Creative Commons (CC) licenses are a set of standardized licenses that creators can choose to apply to their works. For music, a composer or artist might release a track under a CC license to allow others to use it, with conditions. Some key points:

• Types of CC licenses: There are several Creative Commons licenses. For example, CC BY (Attribution) allows use as long as you credit the creator. CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike) allows use if you credit and license your new work under the same terms. CC BY-NC (NonCommercial) allows use only if it’s not for commercial purposes (and with credit). CC0 is essentially “no rights reserved” – the creator waives rights and the music is as free as public domain. Always check which license applies because the rules differ.
• Using CC music: If a piece of music is under a Creative Commons license that fits your project, you generally do not have to pay for a license or individually ask permission – the CC license is the permission. However, you must comply with the license terms. For instance, most CC licenses require giving appropriate credit to the artist (attribution). If the license says “NonCommercial,” you can’t use the music in a project that is commercial in nature (monetized videos, business advertisements, etc.) without further permission. “NoDerivatives” licenses mean you can use the music as-is but not remix or alter it.
• Ensure the source is legitimate: Sometimes people label music as “Creative Commons” or “No Copyright” on the internet even when it’s not their music to give. Make sure you’re obtaining CC music from official or reputable sources (like the artist’s own page, CC music libraries, or platforms like Free Music Archive, ccMixter, etc.).
   In summary, Creative Commons music can be a great way to get usable tracks without traditional licensing hassles, but it’s not a blanket free-for-all – it’s free only if you follow the conditions set by the artist. Always read the specific CC license (usually indicated by symbols like CC-BY, CC-NC, etc.) and respect those rules as carefully as you would a paid license.

Who are the rights holders for a song?

Typically, two main parties hold rights in a song: the music publisher/songwriter (for the composition) and the record label (for the sound recording).
Whenever you want to license a piece of commercial music, it’s important to identify and contact the correct rightsholders. Here’s the breakdown:

• Composition rights (Publishing): This is the song itself – the melody, lyrics, and underlying musical composition. The rights are usually controlled by the songwriter and/or a music publisher (a company that manages songwriters’ rights). If multiple people wrote the song, there could be multiple publishers sharing portions. The composition copyright covers any version of the song (whether performed by the original artist or covered by someone else).
• Sound recording rights (Master): This is the specific recorded performance of the song. The rights are usually held by the record label that produced the recording (or the artist if they are independent and retained their masters). For example, the recording of the song by Famous Band X is owned by Big Label Y. If someone else recorded a cover, that new recording is a different master owned by whoever recorded it.
   So when you want to use a well-known song in, say, a film, you often need permission from both the publisher (for the composition) and the record label (for the specific recording). These are often not the same entity. For instance, a pop song might be written by Songwriter A (published by Warner Chappell Music) and recorded by Artist B (under Universal Music Group). You’d have to clear rights with both Warner Chappell (composition) and Universal (master recording). If you plan to use a cover version or re-record the song, you’d still need the composition from the publisher, and then the master from whoever made that cover recording (if not you).
   Tip: Some music has more complicated rights (samples from other songs, multiple songwriters, etc.), but composition and master are the two core rights to check every time.

How do I find out who owns the rights to a song?

You can identify music rightsholders through resources like performing rights organization databases, the copyright office, or music licensing services.
Here are steps and tools to help find the publishers and labels for a song:

• Performing Rights Organization (PRO) databases: Many PROs have public repertoire search tools. For example, ASCAP and BMI (U.S. PROs) let you search by song title/artist. These databases often list the songwriters and publishers (and their contact info or PRO member IDs). If you see, for instance, that “Song Title” is administered by Sony Music Publishing and AnotherPublisher Inc., you know who to contact for the composition rights. You might have to reach out to those publishers directly or through a clearance agent.
• Music publisher databases: Some large publishers have their own lookup, or you can use tools like the Harry Fox Agency (for mechanical rights information in the U.S.) or Musicbrainz and Discogs for clues on recordings.
• U.S. Copyright Office catalog: The U.S. Copyright Office has an online database where you can search registrations of songs. It’s a bit cumbersome, but it can show the listed publisher/owner for a composition or a sound recording. Keep in mind not every song is registered (registration isn’t required for copyright, though many are).
• Label liner notes / Discographies: If you have physical media (CDs, vinyl) or official digital info, the liner notes usually credit the publisher and record label. The record label is often easier – it’s usually the label that released the album (displayed on the cover or Wikipedia). For publishers, liner notes sometimes say “Song X published by ____ Music”.
• Music licensing platforms: If the song is available on a music licensing platform or library, that platform might handle contacting the owners for you (but in this case you’re often paying them to manage it). Since we’re focusing on direct rights holder contact: once you have publisher and label names, you can find their licensing departments or use a professional music clearance service to reach out.
   Finding the info can take some sleuthing. PRO databases are a great first step for compositions. For example, if you search ASCAP’s database for the song and see the publisher info, you can then find contact details for that publisher’s licensing department. Similarly, for the recording, the record label (like Sony Music, Atlantic Records, etc.) will have a sync licensing department. It may feel like detective work, but it’s a known process in the industry.

How do I get a music license for a song?

To get a music license, you need to contact the rightsholders (or their agents) of the song, request permission for your specific use, negotiate terms, and then secure a written license agreement.
In practical steps:

1. Identify the rightsholders: As mentioned, determine who owns the composition and the master recording. Often this means one or more music publishers (for the songwriting) and a record label (for the recording).
2. Contact the rights owners: Reach out to the publishers and label. Many have licensing or rights clearance departments. You might find contact forms or emails on their websites specifically for licensing inquiries. If you’re dealing with independent artists, you may contact the artist or their manager directly. Provide details about your project and the song you want.
3. Provide usage details: Be prepared to explain exactly how you want to use the music: the context (background, opening credits, etc.), the duration of the segment, the media (film, YouTube, podcast, etc.), the distribution (which countries, how many copies or expected audience), and the time frame (one-time use, one year, perpetuity?). Rights holders need this info to decide on granting permission and what fee to charge.
4. Negotiate terms and fees: The rights holders might quote a fee or ask you for an offer. There may be some back-and-forth until you agree on a price and conditions. For well-known songs, this fee can be significant. For smaller projects or independent music, fees can be more moderate. In some cases, they might refuse or be non-responsive – that’s also a possibility (see later FAQs on what if you can’t get permission).
5. Obtain the license agreement: Once terms are settled, the rights holder (or a clearance service) will draw up a license contract. This document will state what rights are being granted (e.g., the right to synchronize the composition “Song” in your 5-minute short film, to distribute worldwide in perpetuity, for a one-time fee of $X). It should cover any limitations (like media, term, territory) and any credits required. Both you (or your company) and the rights holder will sign it. Sometimes payment is required before the final license is issued.
6. Comply with the license: After you have the license, make sure you follow the terms. If it says the usage is for one year, don’t keep using the music after that without renewal. If it’s limited to certain platforms or territories, respect those limits (e.g., geo-block your video if needed). Keep a copy of the license agreement as proof in case you need to show YouTube or anyone that you have the rights.
    This process can range from straightforward to complex. For famous songs, it often takes time and negotiation; for royalty-free libraries or smaller artists, it can be faster (or even just a quick transaction through a website). Always ensure everything is in writing – a verbal “OK” is not enough. A license agreement is your legal protection.

How does the music licensing process work?

The music licensing process generally involves finding the song’s owners, requesting permission, negotiating a deal, and formalizing it in a license agreement.
Here’s a more narrative description of the process from start to finish:

• Step 1: Inquiry – You (the licensee) decide on a song you want. You reach out to the rights holders (often via email or an online form). For example, you contact the publisher and label saying, “I’d like to use [Song] by [Artist] in my project. Here are the details…” (Provide details as in the prior answer.)
• Step 2: Negotiation – The rights holders review your request. They may come back with questions or directly quote a fee and terms. There’s often negotiation: you might discuss the fee, the extent of rights (maybe you only can afford 5-year rights instead of perpetuity, or you limit to online use to lower cost, etc.). During this phase, both sides agree on key terms: what exactly you can do with the music, and what you’ll pay or provide in return. If multiple parties are involved (multiple publishers or co-owners), you have to clear with all – a process known as “clearing all the rights.” This can happen in parallel.
• Step 3: Agreement – Once terms are settled, they’ll typically send you a license agreement (contract). This document will outline all the conditions: the song title, writers, recording info, your project name, the granted rights (e.g., “synchronization of the composition and master in [Project], for [Media], in [Territory], for [Term]”), any exclusions or special conditions, credit requirements, the fee, and payment terms. You should read it carefully (having a lawyer check is wise for significant deals) to ensure it matches what you negotiated. Then you sign it (physically or electronically) and often pay the license fee. The rights holder(s) counter-sign.
• Step 4: Usage – With the signed license in hand, you can go ahead and use the music as agreed. If it’s a sync license for a film, you can now legally include the music in the film’s audio. If anyone later challenges your use (like a content ID claim on YouTube or a film festival asking for proof of rights), you can show this license agreement as proof.
• Step 5: Follow-up (if needed) – If your use changes (say you initially licensed for festival use and later got distribution, or you want to extend the term or add more territories), you’d return to negotiate an extension or new license. Also, sometimes after a project release, you might need to provide a cue sheet (a document listing all music used in an audio/visual production) to PROs for performance royalty tracking, but that’s typically a broadcaster’s task.
   Throughout this process, communication and clarity are key. It can take anywhere from days to months. Simple uses (like licensing a track from a stock music library) might be near-instant. Big commercial songs can involve multiple gatekeepers and longer negotiations. But overall, it’s about turning a “no you can’t use that” into a “yes, you can, under these conditions” on paper.

How much does a music license cost?

Music licensing costs vary wildly – from free, to a few dollars, to thousands or even millions – depending on factors like the song’s popularity, the usage, the duration, the audience, and the context ().
There is no fixed price for “a music license.” Instead, rights holders consider a variety of factors when quoting a fee. Some key factors include:

• Duration of use: How much of the song you want to use. Using a 5-second snippet might cost less than using the entire song, though even short uses of famous songs can be pricey because of recognizability.
• Type of use and context: Is it background music, or the main theme? Is it in a scene with dialogue (background score) or a montage driven by the song? Prominent, recognizable uses tend to cost more. If the song is used as the title theme or in a trailer, expect higher fees.
• Media/Distribution: Where will this project be shown? Fees differ for a small local theater production, a film festival circuit, a nationwide TV broadcast, a YouTube video, a commercial, etc. Each medium can have different price points. Online might be cheaper than theatrical release, for example, or there might be separate rates for TV vs. internet.
• Geographic territory: Worldwide rights cost more than rights for one country or region. If your film will only show in one country, you might get a lower fee than if you want global rights.
• Time frame (term): Temporary rights (e.g., a 1-year license or a 5-year license) might cost less than perpetual (forever) rights. Sometimes, budgets lead producers to license music for a limited term and renew later if needed.
• Popularity of the song/artist: A hit song from a famous artist can command a very high fee. Lesser-known or independent music is often much more affordable. Well-known songs might start in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars range even for a short use, whereas an indie track might be licensed for a few hundred. For perspective, using a hugely popular song in a major ad campaign can run into six or seven figures. On the other hand, licensing a track from a stock library might cost under $100 in some cases.
• Exclusivity or special provisions: If you want exclusive use (no one else can license that song for a similar use) or if the usage is sensitive (e.g., in a political ad, which some artists may charge more for or refuse), that can affect cost.
   Because every project is unique, rights holders will weigh these and come up with a fee. They may ask your budget – sometimes they genuinely want to accommodate if possible, especially for independent or student filmmakers, but other times they have a set minimum. Always be clear about your intended use; trying to get a cheap deal by downplaying a project can backfire if the song is used beyond what was agreed.

Some real-world context: A songwriter’s estate might license a classic oldie for an indie film for, say, $1,000 if it’s a brief background use, but that same song could cost $50,000 for a nationwide TV commercial. And extremely iconic songs by superstars have been known to be $100,000 or more for broad rights. On the flip side, many royalty-free libraries offer tracks in the tens or hundreds of dollars range because they are pre-cleared and not chart-topping hits (different market).

What factors affect the cost of a music license?

Several factors drive the cost of a music license, including: the portion of the music used, the distribution medium, the audience reach, the duration of rights, and the song’s popularity or uniqueness ().
To break it down, when you request a quote for a license, a rights holder will likely ask:

• “How much of the work are you using?” – Using just a short excerpt vs. the full length of the song can influence price. A chorus or the hook (the most recognizable part) might be valued highly. However, even a short use can be pricey if it’s the key moment of a famous song. It’s not strictly pro-rated by seconds, but generally more music = more cost.
  
• “Where will the work be shown or distributed?” – The platform or media matters a lot. The fees differ if your use is: theatrical (in cinemas), broadcast TV, radio, streaming online, corporate internal use, etc. Also, public vs. private: A film at a festival might have a lower rate than a film on Netflix worldwide. “All media” (covering any and all media formats) is the most expensive scenario, since it gives maximum flexibility (film, TV, online, etc.).
  
• “What geographic territories will it cover?” – Worldwide rights will cost more than, say, North America only, which in turn might cost more than USA only, etc. If you know your project will only be used in certain regions, you can sometimes save money by limiting the license to those. (Be cautious though: if there’s any chance it could expand to other regions, you’d have to renegotiate later or risk infringement in those places.)
  
• “How long do you need the music for?” – This refers to the license term. A two-year license is cheaper than perpetual (forever). If you’re unsure about long-term distribution, you might get a 5-year license to save costs, with an option to renew. Some rights holders offer terms like 1 year, 5 years, or in perpetuity with different fee tiers.
  
• “What kind of project and context is it?” – A commercial advertisement (which directly helps sell a product) often commands a high fee compared to a non-profit documentary or a student film, for instance. A song used under dialogue in the background might be cheaper than the same song used front-and-center in a dance scene. If the music is used as the theme song or in the trailer, that might cost more because it’s a prominent use that could drive interest in the content.
  
• “How popular or iconic is the music?” – A lesser-known library track vs. a number-one Billboard hit will be vastly different in price. Rights holders know the value of a famous song. They may charge more if they know the song is a big selling point for your project or if it’s in high demand.
  
• Music budget constraints: Sometimes, rights holders will ask about your budget or what the project is (big studio vs indie). They might be willing to negotiate lower fees for indie/student projects or charity projects than they would for a large corporate campaign. It never hurts to explain the nature of your project – some publishers have standardized rates for low-budget films, for example.
  

All these factors are weighed and often negotiated. You as the licensee can adjust these levers – if the initial quote is too high, you might negotiate by, say, limiting the term or territory, or using a shorter portion, to bring the fee down. It’s a bit like booking travel: first class to everywhere for a year will cost a lot; economy class to one region for a week costs less. Know what rights you truly need and tailor the request accordingly to manage cost.

How long does music copyright last?

Music copyright generally lasts many decades – typically life of the creator plus 70 years in many countries (including the U.S. for works by individual authors), or a set number of years from publication for older works and works for hire.
In practice:

• For songs created by an individual songwriter today (and after 1978 in the U.S.), the copyright will last for the rest of that songwriter’s life and 70 years after their death (in the U.S. and EU, for example). After that, the song enters the public domain. So if a composer died in 2000, their songs would usually be protected until 2070.
• If multiple authors (songwriting team), it’s 70 years after the last surviving author’s death.
• For older songs in the U.S.: songs published before 1978 had different rules. Many were given a maximum of 95 years from publication if all renewals and extensions were done. That’s why, for example, songs published in 1927 entered public domain in 2023 (1927 + 95 years = 2022 expiry, public domain January 1, 2023). Each year, another year’s batch of songs enters the public domain if their 95-year term ends.
• For “works made for hire” or corporate-owned works (like a jingle made by employees of a company), U.S. law gives a flat 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (whichever is shorter). But most songs, especially older ones, are under the life+70 or older 95-year rule.
• Outside the U.S., many countries use life+70 as well. Some use life+50 (a minimum per older international treaties), and a few have life+100 (e.g., Mexico). So international context matters if you’re considering a very old song’s status globally.

The key takeaway: if a song is even remotely “modern” (20th century and beyond), assume it’s still copyrighted unless you do the math and confirm it has lapsed. The extremely old (19th century or early 1900s) songs might be free by now, but always double-check.

Are all songs automatically copyrighted?

Yes. In most countries including the U.S., copyright protection is automatic from the moment an original song is created and “fixed” (like written down or recorded).
You do not need to register or put a © notice on a song for it to be copyrighted – those steps are beneficial for legal enforcement, but not required for the existence of copyright. This has been true since at least 1978 in the United States and under the Berne Convention internationally, which almost all countries follow. So practically every song you encounter (that isn’t extremely old or explicitly dedicated to public domain) is under copyright protection, whether or not it’s labeled as such.

That means if you wrote a tune today and recorded it on your phone, you have a copyright on that composition and that recording immediately. And if you want to use someone else’s music, you should assume it’s copyrighted even if you don’t see a label or if it’s an obscure piece uploaded online. The safe default is: if it’s not clearly public domain or released under a free license, it’s copyrighted.

For older songs, as discussed, copyright may have expired – but if you’re unsure, treat it as copyrighted until proven otherwise. This automatic protection is why licensing is important; creators inherently have rights that you must respect unless those rights have expired or they grant you permission.

What is the difference between a song’s composition and its recording in licensing?

The composition (songwriting) is the underlying music and lyrics, while the recording (master) is a specific performed version – and each has separate copyrights and licensing requirements.
When you talk about “a song,” there are two distinct components legally:

• Composition (Musical Work): This is the piece of music in the abstract – the melody, chord progression, and lyrics (if any) as written by the songwriter(s). It’s often represented on sheet music or a lyric sheet. The composition is usually controlled by the songwriter or, commonly, their music publisher. If you think of “Happy Birthday” as notes and lyrics on paper, that’s the composition.
  
• Sound Recording (Master): This is a specific recorded performance of the composition. For example, when a band records a track in the studio and releases an MP3 or CD, that audio file embodies a sound recording copyright. This is usually owned by the record label or the recording artist. If five different artists perform “Happy Birthday” and record it, there are five different sound recordings (masters) of the same underlying composition.
  

In licensing, this distinction is crucial: using a recorded song in a project means you usually need two licenses – one for the composition (often called a sync license when paired with visuals) and one for the sound recording (often called a master use license for the recording). If you plan to re-record the song yourself (like make a cover), you’d still need the composition license but not the original master recording license (since you aren’t using that master).

For example, suppose you want to put the song “Imagine” by John Lennon in your movie:

• You’d get a composition license from the publisher that represents John Lennon’s songwriting (to cover the melody/lyrics of “Imagine”).
• If you want to use John Lennon’s actual recorded version, you also get a master license from the record label that owns that recording. If instead you hire a singer to record a new version for you, you’d still get the composition license from the publisher, but you wouldn’t need a master license from Lennon’s label – you’d own or control the new recording (or need a license from whoever recorded it for you).

Always remember: two separate rights, often two separate owners. A music license for one doesn’t automatically cover the other unless it explicitly says so. Many licensing companies or libraries pre-clear both for you, but if you’re doing it yourself, double-check that you’ve cleared both sides of the song.

Do I need permission for both the song and the recording?

In most cases, yes – you must license the composition (song) and the specific sound recording separately, unless you are creating a new recording yourself.
Using recorded music typically involves two sets of rights:

• Composition rights: Belong to the songwriter/publisher.
• Recording (master) rights: Belong to the performer/label of that recording.

If you’re using the original recording by the original artist, you need to get permission from both parties. For instance, to use Beyoncé’s recorded song, you’d get a license from the publisher of the songwriters (for the composition) and from Beyoncé’s label (for the master recording). Each will issue its own license or approval. This is often why licensing popular songs can be complex – you might get the okay from one side but are still waiting on the other.

If you plan to use a cover version or record the song yourself: you still need the composition rights (from the publisher), but for the recording you’ll either license an existing cover’s master from whoever made it, or if you record it yourself, you effectively create a new master that you control. In that case, once you have the composition license (such as a mechanical license for an audio-only cover, or a sync license from the publisher for audiovisual use), you don’t need a “master” license from the original artist because you’re not using their recording.

To be thorough, always ask: “Am I using someone’s composition? Am I using someone’s recording?” If yes, secure the rights for each accordingly. The only time you don’t need to worry about both is if the music is original (you made both composition and recording) or truly public domain (both composition and a particular recording you found, if any).

Types of Licenses

What are the different types of music licenses?

There are several key types of music licenses, each granting different rights – the main ones include synchronization, public performance, mechanical, master use, print, and blanket licenses.
When dealing with music, you’ll encounter these common license types:

• Synchronization License (Sync) – Allows you to synchronize a musical composition with visual media (films, TV, videos, etc.). This is the license you get from the music publisher/songwriter to put the song in your video (timed with visuals). It covers the composition rights for audiovisual use. (We’ll detail it below.)
  
• Public Performance License – Covers the right to play music publicly (concerts, radio, TV broadcast, streaming, in a business, etc.). Businesses and broadcasters obtain these (often via PROs as discussed) so they can play songs for the public. This license ensures songwriters get paid when their music is performed or transmitted publicly.
  
• Mechanical License – Grants the right to reproduce and distribute a musical composition in audio-only formats. You need this to release a cover song on a CD, vinyl, MP3, or include someone’s composition in your podcast or other audio recording. “Mechanical” refers historically to piano rolls – today it means any audio copy of a song someone else wrote.
  
• Master Use License – The right to use a specific sound recording (master) in a new project. If you want to use the original recorded track by an artist in your movie or remix, you need a master license from whoever owns that recording (often a record label). It’s often paired with a sync license (you need both) when you use an original song in a video.
  
• Print License – The right to print or display sheet music or lyrics of a composition. If you want to include lyrics in a book, or print sheet music arrangements, or even display lyrics on a screen (karaoke style, for example), you would need a print rights license from the publisher.
  
• Blanket License – A license that covers a large catalog of works for general use, usually offered by organizations like PROs. For example, a radio station gets a blanket license from ASCAP/BMI to play any music in their repertoire without negotiating song by song. Similarly, some music libraries offer blanket licenses or subscriptions allowing use of any music in their collection under certain conditions.
  

These categories sometimes overlap in practice. For instance, a “sync license” typically refers to composition rights for visual media, and you’d separately get the “master license” for the recording; both are needed to fully license a song in a film. Additionally, terms like “broadcast license” or “online license” might be used to specify public performance rights in those contexts (but those are usually handled via the PRO blanket licenses).

Understanding which license you need comes down to what you plan to do:

• Putting music in a video? You need a sync (for composition) + master (for recording).
• Playing music in your cafe? You need a public performance license (often via PRO blanket).
• Releasing a cover song on Spotify? You need a mechanical license (and ensure the service/PROs handle performance).
• Printing lyrics on a website? You need a print license (lyrics are a form of composition).

We’ll dive into many of these individually below.

What is a synchronization (sync) license?

A synchronization license (sync license) is permission to pair a piece of music with visual content – for example, using a song in a movie, TV show, or YouTube video.
“Sync” refers to synchronizing music with moving images. Here’s what to know:

• A sync license is obtained from the owner of the composition (usually the publisher or songwriter). It allows you to use the underlying song in timed relation with visual scenes. For instance, if you want to play 30 seconds of a song during a scene in your film, you’d clear the sync rights.
• It does not cover the sound recording – often you’ll also need a master use license from the record label to use the specific recording (see Master Use License below). So sync deals with the song (lyrics/melody), not the particular recorded performance. However, in casual talk, people sometimes say “sync license” to mean the whole package of using a song in a video – but legally it’s one piece of the puzzle.
• Sync licenses are needed for any audiovisual use: film, TV, commercials, video games, YouTube or social media videos, corporate videos, etc. Even a PowerPoint with a music track, technically, requires sync if the music is timed to slides (visuals).
• Negotiation: Sync rights for popular songs can be complex. You have to negotiate with the publisher(s) of the song. They’ll consider the usage context. Some might refuse if they don’t like the association (e.g., a song in a controversial political ad). Others will charge a fee based on how much of the song you use, how it’s used (background vs. feature), and the distribution of your project (). It’s common that a one-time fee (“sync fee”) is paid for the sync license (), separate from any public performance royalties that might occur when the content airs on TV (performance royalties would be handled by PROs later).
• Example: If you want to use 1 minute of a famous Beatles song in your YouTube short film, you (or your clearance agent) would contact the publisher (Sony/ATV, etc.) for that Beatles song to ask for a sync license. They might quote a fee for that usage. If approved and paid, they grant a sync license agreement giving you the right to sync the composition in your film. Then you’d also need the master license from the Beatles’ record label for the recording (or use a cover recording to skip that part).

In summary, a sync license is the core license for adding music to visual media. Without it, pairing music with visuals (like adding any popular song to your video) would be an unauthorized use of the composition. It’s one of the most common licenses sought by content creators and filmmakers, and usually the one that can be most costly and negotiated case-by-case.

What is a mechanical license?

A mechanical license gives permission to reproduce and distribute a copyrighted musical composition in audio-only formats (like CDs, vinyl, MP3s, streams, etc.).
It’s called “mechanical” from the old term “mechanical reproduction” (think piano rolls and phonographs). In today’s terms: if you want to record a cover song or include someone else’s song on an audio recording you’ll distribute, you need a mechanical license. Key points:

• Covers and releases: When you record a cover version of someone else’s song and plan to release it (sell it, put it on streaming, etc.), a mechanical license is required to use the underlying composition. This ensures the songwriters get paid their share for your copies of their song.
• Physical and digital copies: Mechanical rights apply to physical copies (CDs, vinyl) and also to permanent digital downloads and interactive streams. For example, pressing 500 CDs of your cover song or uploading your cover to Spotify (which involves interactive streaming) triggers mechanical reproduction rights.
• Who to get it from: In the US, mechanical licenses for most music can be obtained through agencies like the Harry Fox Agency (HFA) or the new Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) for streaming. These act on behalf of publishers. You pay a set royalty per copy or per listener. In some jurisdictions, or if not available through an agency, you’d go directly to the publisher for a mechanical license.
• Compulsory license in US: U.S. copyright law actually has a compulsory mechanical license provision. This means once a song has been released to the public, anyone else can cover it as long as they pay the statutory mechanical royalty rate and comply with the conditions (you can’t change the basic melody/lyrics, for example). The current U.S. statutory rate is around 9.1 cents per copy (or per download, per song) for songs up to 5 minutes (a bit more if longer). In practice, agencies handle these payments.
• Mechanicals for podcasts and others: If you include a copyrighted song recording in a podcast (audio only), it’s a bit of a gray area – it’s not a “cover” you performed, it’s the actual recording plus composition. Technically you’d need a mechanical (for distributing the composition in an audio recording) and a master license (for using the actual recording) from the label. There’s no compulsory license for using existing recordings in a podcast; that requires direct permission. The term “mechanical” usually applies when you are reproducing the composition either by covering or duplicating it in a new audio product.
• Example: You want to record yourself singing a Taylor Swift song and put it on a small album. You’d secure a mechanical license (through HFA or directly from her publisher) for the composition. You’d then owe a royalty (either paid upfront for an estimated number of copies or accounted for later) for each time that song is reproduced (each album or download). The mechanical license compels the copyright holder to allow it, as long as you pay the set fees and adhere to the original composition.

In short, mechanical licenses are all about the right to make copies of a song’s composition in audio form. If you are distributing music that includes someone else’s songwriting (whether you perform it or it’s embedded in something like a podcast), mechanical rights come into play. Without a mechanical license, distributing that music is infringement (even if you performed the cover entirely yourself).

What is a public performance license?

A public performance license allows you to play music publicly – whether live or via recordings – so that the songwriters (and publishers) are paid for public use of their music.
“Public performance” of music means any performance (live band, DJ, jukebox, playlist, radio, TV broadcast, streaming) that occurs outside a private setting. If you’re playing music where the general public or a large group can hear it, that’s a public performance. Here’s what a public performance license entails:

• Issued by PROs: Generally, businesses and organizations obtain public performance licenses through Performing Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.) as a blanket license. Instead of getting permission song by song, a restaurant, for example, pays an annual fee to ASCAP, which then allows them to play any music from ASCAP’s repertoire legally in that establishment. ASCAP then distributes royalties to the songwriters whose songs are played (through a formula). Usually a business will get licenses from all major PROs to cover the full spectrum of music (since one PRO doesn’t cover all songs).
• Live performances and covers: If a band is playing cover songs at a bar, the bar’s PRO license covers that – the band doesn’t individually get licenses for each song. The responsibility is on the venue hosting the performance (or the broadcaster for radio/TV) to be licensed. This also applies to things like music over loudspeakers or DJs at a club. The public performance license ensures that even when music is performed by someone else or via playback, the original composers get their due.
• What it covers: It covers only the performance right for the composition. It does not give you the right to use music in a video or to make recordings (those are sync/mechanical). It simply keeps you legal when you’re publicly playing the music. For example, a retail store with a radio on is technically performing music to the public. Without a PRO license, that’s copyright infringement. The license makes it legal, and the money goes to rights holders.
• Exemptions: There are a few narrow exemptions in U.S. law for public performance: for example, very small establishments under specific sizes using only a regular radio broadcast at a normal volume might be exempt under certain conditions (the law has some specifics about square footage and number of speakers – sometimes called the “small business exemption”). Also, as noted earlier, face-to-face teaching in a classroom and performances in religious worship services are exempt (no license needed for those specific contexts). But generally, any commercial or public use requires a license.
• How to get one: If you own a business that uses music, you typically contact the PROs (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) and obtain a license. Each PRO will charge a fee usually based on factors like the size of your venue, how music is used (live, recorded, audio only, audiovisual, etc.), and sometimes capacity or audience size. Many businesses pay a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year per PRO, depending on their usage. Broadcasters and large venues pay more. Alternatively, some background music providers handle licenses for you (they pay PROs and you pay them for a music service).

Example: A radio station has public performance licenses with PROs. When they play a song, they log it, and the PROs eventually pay the songwriters for those spins. If you stream music in your cafe, you should have licenses from PROs so that when you play, say, a Beatles song over the speakers, Paul McCartney (through his publisher) gets a tiny royalty for that public play.

In summary, a public performance license is what legally allows music to be “performed” or played to the public. It’s usually not something an individual content creator deals with directly unless you’re a business owner or broadcaster – then it’s essential to avoid infringement. It’s one of the core ways musicians earn money, via PROs collecting those fees.

What is a master use (master recording) license?

A master use license is the permission to use a specific copyrighted sound recording in your project.
While a sync license covers the song/composition, a master license (often just called a master license) covers the actual audio recording – the performed version of the song as captured on an album or track. Key points:

• Issued by the recording owner: This is usually the record label or the artist who owns that recording (the “master”). If you want to use the original studio recording of a song, you must get a master license from the label that released it. For example, to use the famous studio recording of “Bohemian Rhapsody” by Queen, you’d get a master license from whoever owns Queen’s recordings (likely their record company). If you only got the sync license from the publisher (Queen’s songwriting in this case), and not the master license, you cannot legally use that recording – you’d only have the right to make your own recording of the song or use someone else’s licensed recording.
• Works in tandem with sync: In audiovisual uses, you almost always need both sync (composition) and master licenses if using a commercial recording. They are negotiated separately. Sometimes one might be more expensive than the other, and deals can vary. It’s possible a publisher says yes while a label says no, or vice versa, so you need clearance from both to proceed.
• Master licenses beyond sync: You also need master licenses in situations beyond film/TV. For example, if you want to include a famous recording in a compilation album or a mixtape you’re selling, that’s a master use (and mechanical) issue. Or sampling: if you sample a piece of a sound recording, you need a master license (from the label) to use that sample, aside from composition issues.
• Negotiation factors: Master use fees for popular recordings can be high and often mirror the sync fee in magnitude. Some labels and publishers insist on Most Favored Nations (MFN), meaning they each want to be paid the same amount so neither the composition nor the master side is less valued. E.g., if the publisher is paid $5,000, the label will also ask for $5,000 for the master, ensuring parity. Master licenses can also be denied – some artists/labels are protective of certain recordings (for instance, they might not allow a song’s original recording to be used in certain contexts).
• Alternate recordings: One way to navigate expensive master fees is to use an alternate recording. Perhaps a cheaper cover version or a re-recording by the same artist (some artists re-record old hits once they have rights to do so, to license more cheaply). If you license a cover recording from a production library or lesser-known artist, you might only pay a small master fee for that recording plus the composition fee.

Example: You’re making a TV show and you want to use the song “Imagine.” You reach out to the publisher (for John Lennon’s composition) and the record label (for the famous John Lennon master recording). The publisher says yes for a $10k sync fee. The label also wants $10k for the master license. If you agree, you pay both, and you get both licenses. Now you can dub the original “Imagine” recording in your show. If the master license was too high, you might have instead hired a musician to record a cover of “Imagine” for, say, $1k. Then you’d still pay the $10k to the publisher, but skip paying the original label – you’d use your new recording (you’d own that new master or have it work-for-hire).

In short, a master use license is all about the specific audio recording you want to use. Without it, you can’t legally copy or distribute someone’s recording. It’s one of the two clearances needed to use commercial music in projects (the other being the sync/composition license). Always ensure you’ve cleared the master if you’re not using a recording you made yourself.

What is a print license (for sheet music or lyrics)?

A print license allows you to legally print or display copyrighted music notation or lyrics.
This type of license is about the written form of a song. If you want to use the actual written music or words in some format, you need permission from the publisher/songwriter in the form of a print license. Examples and details:

• Printing sheet music: Suppose you’re arranging a song for a school choir and you want to print copies of the sheet music for the students. If the song is under copyright, you need a print license from the publisher to make those copies (or purchase an already-licensed sheet music arrangement). Often, buying published sheet music is effectively obtaining the license because the publisher sells it with that cost built in. But if you’re making your own arrangement or copying from a book, you need permission.
• Displaying lyrics: If you want to put song lyrics in a book, on a website, or project them onscreen (say, subtitles of a song in a video, or karaoke display), that’s reproducing the composition text. A print (or sometimes called “lyric reprint”) license is required from the publisher to legally show those lyrics. For example, printing the full lyrics of a popular song in your novel or blog without permission would be infringement; with a license, it’s allowed (and usually you pay a fee per copy or a flat fee).
• Selling arrangements: If you arrange a copyrighted song for, say, piano and want to sell the sheet music of your arrangement, you definitely need a print license (and likely an arrangement license specifically) from the copyright owner. They may want to approve the arrangement and will take a cut since it’s their melody/lyrics.
• Digital and display: Print rights also cover e-books or digital sheet music, chord charts, etc. Anytime you’re reproducing the notes or lyrics in writing (or digital print), it’s under this category. Even posting a snippet of lyrics on social media technically is a reproduction of a copyrighted text (though a very short snippet might sometimes be covered under fair use if it’s minimal – but e.g. posting entire choruses is not fair use).
• Who grants it: The music publisher (who controls the composition) grants print licenses. Some have specific rates (like a few cents per copy of lyrics printed, or a negotiated amount for a one-time use). There are also agencies that handle certain print rights (like Hal Leonard or Musicnotes, who publish sheet music under agreements with publishers).

Example: You have a website where you’d like to feature the lyrics of 10 Beatles songs alongside analysis. Legally, you would approach the publisher (Sony/ATV for many Beatles songs) to get a print/reprint license for those lyrics on a website. They might charge a licensing fee or royalties based on the number of views. This is why many websites don’t post full lyrics without permission – instead, they rely on either licensed lyric databases or they avoid it to not infringe.

Most individual creators don’t often need print licenses unless you’re in music education, publishing, or similar fields, but it’s good to know: displaying someone’s lyrics or music in written form isn’t automatically allowed just because you bought the song or have an audio license – it’s a separate right.

What is a blanket license?

A blanket license is a broad license that allows the licensee to use a wide range of music from a catalog or multiple catalogs, without having to clear each work individually.
It’s “blanket” in the sense that it covers everything under the blanket source for a set time and context. Common scenarios:

• PRO blanket licenses: As discussed, performing rights organizations issue blanket licenses to venues, broadcasters, streaming services, etc. For example, a bar’s ASCAP blanket license lets them play any of the millions of songs in ASCAP’s repertoire as much as they want, for one fee. The “blanket” covers all songs represented by that PRO. Similarly, BMI, SESAC, etc., each offer their own blanket – many businesses get all of them to have a full blanket across the major catalogs.
• Music library blanket licenses: Some production music libraries or subscription services offer blanket licenses to media creators. For instance, a video production company might pay an annual fee to a stock music library and in return can use any track from that library’s collection in their videos throughout the year. This alleviates the need to pay per track (which is another model). It’s often seen in subscription models (e.g., “unlimited downloads and use of our library for $X per year”). This is effectively a blanket license for that library’s catalog for the subscriber.
• Blanket vs. needle-drop: The opposite of a blanket might be a “needle-drop” license (old term from dropping a needle on a record each time) where you pay per use or per song. Blanket simplifies to one deal for all content, often with some limitations in scope (like “any song in our library for uses in online videos, but not in theatrical films,” or something like that, depending on the terms).
• Examples in practice: Radio stations operate under blanket licenses – they don’t call each songwriter when they want to play a song; they just pay PROs annually. Another example: a streaming service like Spotify has blanket agreements (via PROs and other organizations) to play essentially any released music, and they pay royalties based on overall usage. A wedding DJ doesn’t individually clear each song; the venue or DJ company should have a blanket license covering that performance of any music.
• Limitations: Blanket licenses are usually confined to a certain context. A PRO blanket license covers public performance rights, but it wouldn’t cover sync rights. So even if a TV network has a blanket license to play music on air, if they want to use a song in a show’s soundtrack, they still need sync/master licenses for that (the performance blanket only covers the act of broadcasting it to the public, not the initial coupling of music to show). Similarly, a blanket license from a stock library usually covers specific types of use (like all web uses) but might require an upgrade for major film use. Always check the terms of any blanket license – what rights it grants and any exceptions.

Why use a blanket: It massively simplifies legal use of music in repetitive-use environments. Imagine if a cafe had to individually license every song it plays in a year – impossible to manage. So instead they pay a flat (or quarterly) fee to PROs and get on with business. The creators still get paid (the PRO distributes the money) without micro-managing every single play.

For content creators, some opt for subscription music services so they have essentially a blanket to use any track in the service’s library for their YouTube videos without worrying about separate licenses each time.

What is a compulsory license for music?

A compulsory license is a license that a copyright owner must grant by law to users, provided certain conditions are met and set fees are paid – the most notable example in music is the compulsory mechanical license for cover songs in the U.S..
Under U.S. copyright law, once a musical work has been published (released to the public by the author), others can obtain a mechanical license to record and distribute their own version of that song without the publisher’s express permission, as long as they adhere to Section 115 of the Copyright Act. This is “compulsory” because the rights holder cannot refuse – it’s mandated by law. Key points:

• Mechanical compulsory (Section 115): This is used for making cover songs. As mentioned earlier, if you want to cover a song that’s already been released by the original artist, you can invoke the compulsory mechanical license by serving notice to the copyright owner (usually via the Harry Fox Agency or now the Mechanical Licensing Collective for streaming), and paying the statutory royalty rate for each copy you make. As long as you follow the rules (you can’t change the basic melody/character of the song, you have to pay royalties and report usage), the copyright owner can’t stop you from releasing the cover. They get paid the set fee (currently 9.1¢ per copy for songs ≤5 minutes, etc.).
• Why it exists: It encourages creation of new versions and performances of songs, which is seen as beneficial. It’s why we have things like cover songs on albums, tribute albums, etc., without the original songwriter vetoing each one (as long as they get their royalties). Note: the compulsory license only applies after the song is first published by the original author. You can’t compel a license for an unreleased song. And it’s only for audio recordings (not for using in film – sync is not compulsory).
• Other compulsory licenses: In U.S. law, there are also compulsory licenses for things like cable retransmissions, certain public broadcasting uses, and a big one: a compulsory license for non-interactive digital transmissions (like Pandora or internet radio – they have a compulsory license to play sound recordings if they pay statutory rates to SoundExchange). For compositions, the main one is the mechanical. Some other countries have similar concepts (or they handle through collective management).
• No compulsory for sync or performance: There is no compulsory license to use a song in a movie or ad – those are at the discretion of the owner. Similarly, playing music publicly is not compulsory (it’s just handled by PROs, but a songwriter could withdraw works from PRO if they wanted to prevent some performances). So “compulsory” in music mostly comes up with covers (mechanicals) and certain broadcasting/streaming of recordings.

Example: You record a cover of a famous song and plan to sell it on iTunes. You don’t have to ask the songwriter “please, may I?” – you can go to a service like the Harry Fox Agency or Songfile, or directly to the publisher, and say “I am serving notice of intention to obtain a compulsory mechanical license for this cover.” You pay the fees for the number of downloads you expect (or as they accrue), and that’s it. The publisher can’t say no (as long as you followed rules). They get the royalties from you eventually. This way, lots of artists can legally cover songs on albums without individual negotiations, which would be burdensome for common songs that many people cover.

So, a compulsory license is essentially a built-in exception where the law has pre-approved certain uses of music (with payment) in order to encourage access and dissemination, while still compensating the creators through fixed rates.

What is an exclusive vs a non-exclusive music license?

An exclusive music license grants sole rights to one licensee for certain uses, whereas a non-exclusive license allows multiple people to license and use the same music for similar purposes.
This concept often comes up in music licensing agreements and libraries:

• Exclusive license: If you obtain an exclusive license, you are the only one (besides the rights holder) allowed to use that music in the manner specified, during the term of the license. For example, an artist might give an exclusive license to a specific film – meaning they agree their song will only appear in that film and not in any other film for a certain period, or they won’t license it to other films at all. Exclusive deals are sometimes sought for ad campaigns (a brand might want to be the only one using a particular song so it’s strongly associated with them and not another brand). Exclusive licenses can command higher fees because they restrict the licensor from earning money from others for that same use. It’s almost like a temporary partial ownership or reservation of the song for that context.
• Non-exclusive license: This is the most common type. It means the rights holder can license the same music to others as well, and the licensee does not have unique rights. For instance, when you license a royalty-free track from a library, that license is non-exclusive – many other creators can license that same track for their videos. Even when licensing popular songs for films, unless you explicitly negotiate exclusivity, it’s assumed non-exclusive: the publisher or label could license the same song to another show or film as well. Non-exclusive is cheaper and simpler, and adequate for most uses.
• In practice: Most sync licenses are non-exclusive (the music can be licensed to multiple shows, ads, etc.). But if you want a competitive edge or a signature sound, you might seek exclusivity. For example, a video game developer might pay for exclusive rights to use a particular song in video games, so their competitor can’t also use it. This would be spelled out (maybe exclusive in the field of video games, but not exclusive in films – you can have exclusivity limited by medium, territory, or time).
• Library music exclusivity: Some production music libraries sign exclusive agreements with composers, meaning the library has exclusive rights to license those tracks (the composer won’t put them in other libraries). That’s a different angle (that’s exclusivity from the composer’s side). But as a customer, when you license from that library, it’s usually still non-exclusive to you – it just means you can only get that track through that library. Conversely, non-exclusive libraries allow composers to have the same track in multiple libraries, which means as a licensee you might find the same track elsewhere.

Pros and cons: Exclusive licenses give you uniqueness – no one else can use that music in a way that might conflict with your usage. This can be important for branding (you don’t want your competitor using the same jingle). But exclusivity is costly and often unnecessary for things like background music. Non-exclusive is far more common, enabling broader use of music by many and giving the rights holder multiple revenue streams from the same piece.

When negotiating, if you need exclusivity, be very specific about scope (media, duration, territory) because it will significantly raise the price and the rights holder will want limits so they can still exploit the song elsewhere.

What do “media, territory, and term” mean in a music license?

“Media,” “territory,” and “term” are key parameters in a music license that define where and how long you can use the music, and in what formats or platforms.
They basically answer: How can you use it, Where can you use it, and For how long can you use it.

• Media: This specifies the forms of media or distribution channels your license covers. Common media specifications include:
  
• Theatrical (showings in cinemas/theaters).
• Television (broadcast on TV networks, cable).
• Radio.
• Internet/Online (which might cover YouTube, streaming platforms, social media, etc.).
• Home Video (DVD/Blu-ray distribution).
• Video Game, Mobile App, etc. (if applicable).
• All media means you have the right to use the music across any and all platforms – from theatrical to TV to internet – which is broad (and usually costs more). Sometimes phrased as “all media now known or hereafter devised” for truly everything.
• For example, a license might grant you “TV and online rights” but exclude theatrical – meaning you can use the music on television broadcasts and internet, but if you later wanted to put your project in theaters, you’d need to extend the media to theatrical.
  
• Territory: This defines the geographic regions where you’re allowed to distribute or show your project with the music. It could be:
  
• Worldwide (global rights).
• Specific countries or regions: e.g., “North America,” “Europe,” “USA only,” “UK and Ireland,” etc.
• By language markets (less common, but sometimes tied to languages).
• If you have a territory restriction, you are supposed to ensure the content (like a film or online video) is only available in those areas. For a film, that might mean you only distribute it in that country’s theaters or DVD region. For online, it could require geo-blocking viewers outside those territories. Worldwide is ideal but if your project is small and local, you can save money by only licensing the territory you need. If later you go broader, you’d get a license extension.
  
• Term: This is the duration of time the license covers. Common terms:
  
• In perpetuity (forever) – once licensed, you can use it forever under the agreed terms. This is the most hassle-free but expensive option.
• Limited terms like 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc. After that term, your rights to use the music expire. This doesn’t necessarily mean you have to pull existing copies from circulation (though it could if contract says so), but it means you can’t continue to distribute or new usages after that term. Often in advertising, a company might license a song for a 1-year campaign. After that year, the ads must be taken down or the music removed unless they renew the license.
• Life of the project (like the entire run of a TV series, or duration of a film’s copyright). Sometimes licenses for films are done “for the life of copyright” which is effectively like perpetuity for that film (practically perpetuity).
• A limited term license is cheaper. If you’re not sure if a project will have a life beyond a festival run, you might get 2-year festival rights, then later upgrade to perpetuity for distribution.
  

Putting it together: These terms often appear in a license grant clause, e.g., “Licensee may synchronize and use the Composition [Song] in the Program [Your Film], for distribution in the media of theatrical, non-theatrical, television, and online streaming, throughout the world (the Territory), in perpetuity (the Term).” That would be a very broad license (“all media, worldwide, in perpetuity” – the gold standard if you can get it). If you see something like “Term: 1 year from first airing; Territory: North America; Media: All media excluding theatrical,” you know the limitations.

It’s crucial to plan your needs ahead of time. If you license music for say, “festival use only, 1 year, US only” because it’s cheap, but then your film gets picked up by an international distributor, you’ll have to go back and upgrade the license (which could be expensive or the rights holder might renegotiate tougher knowing you need it). So try to get as broad as you can afford for important projects.

Use Cases

How does music licensing work for films?

For films, you must obtain synchronization licenses for the musical compositions and master use licenses for the recordings you want to include in the movie’s soundtrack, negotiating with the publishers and record labels accordingly.
In practice, licensing music for a film involves these steps:

• Choosing music and budgeting: Early on, filmmakers (often through a music supervisor) decide which songs or score pieces they want and allocate part of the budget to music. Commercial songs can be pricey, so typically there’s a mix of perhaps some known tracks and original score or indie music to balance the budget.
• Clearance (sync and master): For each existing song (not original score) you want in the film, you need to clear two rights – the sync (composition) and the master (recording). This means contacting the music publisher(s) and the record label(s) for that song. Often, a music supervisor or clearance specialist will handle this, as they have contacts and know the process. You provide details on how the song will be used in the film – e.g., in the background of a bar scene for 2 minutes, or over the end credits, etc., as well as the distribution plan of the film (festivals? theatrical release? streaming?).
• Negotiation: The rights holders quote fees. Sometimes they’ll ask for a scene description to ensure it’s appropriate (some might refuse if, say, their love song is being used in an extremely violent scene – it can depend). You negotiate a fee that covers the intended distribution. For indie films, sometimes rights holders offer festival-only rates (a smaller fee to use the song for festival screenings only, with the agreement that you’ll renegotiate if the film gets a commercial release). They will definitely want to know territory and term – many film licenses aim for perpetuity/worldwide (because you want the film to be out there forever), but if you can’t afford that, you might start limited.
• Licensing: Once agreement is reached, they provide license contracts. You pay the fees. Now you have the legal right to include the music in your film’s audio. Typically, the license will specify something like “the song X can be used in the film Y (maybe even naming the scene) for distribution in [media] in [territory] for [term].” For a secure distribution, filmmakers try to get “all media, worldwide, in perpetuity” for each song, so that they never have to worry about it again. If not, they have to be mindful (e.g., if it’s only festival rights, they can’t sell the film until they upgrade the license).
• Master vs Composition: It’s worth noting sometimes filmmakers use cover versions to save money. For example, the original recording of a famous 1960s song might be very expensive to license from the major label, so they might license the composition from the publisher and then use a new recording (which they either produce or license from a cheaper source) of that song. This way they avoid the high cost of the original master. Music supervisors often commission “sound-alike” recordings or find existing covers that are easier to clear.
• Cue sheets: After the film is done, they prepare a cue sheet – a document listing all music used, with timing, composer, publisher info. This is submitted to performing rights societies so that if the film is broadcast or shown, the composers/publishers get performance royalties for the public performance of their music in the film. This doesn’t affect the licensing you did, but is a follow-up for royalties distribution.
• Special cases: If the film has a composer score, usually that’s work-for-hire or commissioned music – different from licensing existing songs (the composer typically assigns the rights to the production or agrees on how it can be used). If the film is a musical or heavily music-centric, sometimes producers pre-negotiate rights before production (you wouldn’t shoot a scene with actors singing a famous song without clearing it first).

Example: You’re making a drama and want a particular Beatles song for the opening credits. The process: contact publisher (Sony/ATV) for sync, contact the label (Apple/EMI) for master. They quote perhaps $100k each for worldwide perpetuity (Beatles are expensive). That might blow your budget. You could try for just festival rights for $10k each and hope for the best. Or decide to use a cheaper alternative song. Maybe you find an indie artist whose song has a similar vibe and they license it to you for $5k all-in. These decisions happen frequently in film production.

Overall, licensing for film is about clearing all the music rights so that when you distribute the film, you have no legal issues. It can be one of the more complex and pricey parts of production, which is why some films stick mainly to original score or public domain/indie songs.

Can I use a licensed song in my podcast?

Yes, but you still need to obtain the proper licenses – using music in a podcast (which is an audio recording) typically requires both a mechanical (or sync-like) license for the composition and a master use license for the recording, since you are distributing someone’s copyrighted music embedded in your podcast.
Using music in podcasts is a common desire (for intro/outro themes, background, etc.), but it’s legally similar to other uses: you need permission. Key points:

• Podcasts are not covered by “fair use” or anything automatically just because they’re talk shows or free – if you include a copyrighted song in your episode, it’s an unauthorized use unless you license it. Some podcasters mistakenly think short clips or non-commercial status make it okay, but that’s not true (a podcast is typically considered a distributed publication of audio, so licenses are needed just as if you were releasing a CD with that song on it).
• Licenses needed: A podcast involves reproduction and distribution of music (people download or stream the episode, which contains the music). This is akin to making an audio recording that includes someone else’s music. That triggers:
• A mechanical license for the composition (because you are effectively reproducing the song as part of an audio product). There isn’t a special “podcast license” in copyright law – it falls under mechanical reproduction of the composition. You’d get this from the publisher.
• A master use license for the specific recording if you’re using a known recorded song. E.g., using 30 seconds of a hit song as your intro – you’d need the label’s permission for that recording, plus the publisher’s for the song.
• In reality: Clearing popular music for podcasts can be challenging because there hasn’t been a straightforward marketplace for it like there is for YouTube (YouTube has Content ID and some licensing schemes). Podcasters often avoid commercial music and instead use podsafe music – that is, music from libraries or independent artists that is specifically licensed for use in podcasts (often royalty-free or Creative Commons licensed music). This is why many podcasts use stock music or commissioned themes. It’s simpler and cheaper than trying to license a famous track, which could be expensive and time-limited.
• If you do want a popular song: You’d approach it like any other license. Contact the publisher for a sync/mechanical right (sometimes they treat it like a sync because you’re “synchronizing” to your content, even though it’s audio-only – it’s basically a background use license of the composition in a new audio production). And contact the label for the master. You’d specify that it’s for a podcast (which is essentially an internet distribution, downloadable and streaming). The label/publisher might be confused if they don’t often license to podcasts, but they could issue a license. Possibly they’ll consider it similar to how they license for film/TV except audio-only. Fees might be negotiable – maybe lower if it’s a small, niche podcast, or not; it depends.
• Alternatives: There are now some services that provide music for podcasts legally (some PROs or companies have started offering podcast music licenses). For instance, you might get a blanket license for a catalog of production music to use across your episodes. Some podcasters use tracks from libraries like Artlist, Epidemic Sound, etc., which allow podcast use under their subscription (one should verify each service’s terms for podcast inclusion – many do allow it).
• Streaming vs download: One nuance – mechanical licenses cover permanent downloads and physical copies. For streams, publishers might handle it through PROs or a combination of PRO and mechanical. But since podcasts are often downloadable, mechanical is definitely relevant. The Mechanical Licensing Collective (in U.S.) was set up for digital streaming mechanicals, but user-generated content like podcasts doesn’t fall under the blanket they manage (that blanket covers services like Spotify, not people embedding music in their own creations). So, you as a podcaster have to do direct clearance.

Bottom line: To use a known song in your podcast intro, you should contact the rights holders and get permission (and likely pay a fee). If that’s impractical, opt for podcast-safe music: either use music specifically made for free use (with attribution if required) or subscribe to a service that offers licensed music for podcasts.

Many podcasts avoid all that by not using copyrighted music at all – they might use a few seconds under a “talking over it” scenario hoping fair use (like a criticism show might play a short clip to discuss it). But if it’s just for mood or entertainment, that’s not fair use. So legally, any music you didn’t compose needs a license for podcast use.

What do I need to do to use music in a YouTube video?

To legally use copyrighted music in a YouTube video, you need to obtain a synchronization license for the song (and a master license for the recording if using the original recording) before including it in your video.
In practical terms:

• License the music: As with film, you must get permission from the song’s publisher and the recording’s owner to sync the music with your video. Contact them, explain you want to use it in a YouTube video (or online video) and negotiate a fee or terms. Once you have that license, you can use the song in your video and upload it to YouTube. YouTube might still flag it (their Content ID system doesn’t automatically know you have a license), but you would have documentation to contest any claim or you might arrange with the rights holder to whitelist your video.
• Content ID and claims: If you upload a video with copyrighted music and don’t have a license, YouTube’s Content ID system will likely detect it. One of a few things can happen:
• The music rightsholder (via Content ID) may allow the video to stay up but monetize it themselves (i.e., run ads and take the revenue). You often see this: “Copyrighted content found – the video is monetized by the claimant.” This is not a “strike” (it’s a claim). It means the rights holder is okay with your use as long as they get ad money. However, this is entirely at their discretion – many record labels do this for songs because they prefer to earn ad revenue rather than take the video down.
• The rightsholder may block the video – either worldwide or in certain countries. Some artists/labels block usage completely. If that happens, your video won’t be viewable (or not in those regions).
• In harsher cases (or if you keep doing it), you might get a copyright strike (an actual penalty on your channel). YouTube gives three strikes before termination. Simple Content ID claims usually aren’t strikes unless the owner issues a formal takedown request under the DMCA. But multiple blocks or takedowns can lead to strikes.
• To avoid strikes and issues, it’s best to either license the music or use royalty-free/allowed music.
• YouTube’s Creator Music: Recently, YouTube introduced a feature (in some regions) called Creator Music where you can buy a license for certain popular songs directly through YouTube for use in your video, or share revenue with the music owner. If available, that’s an easier way – you pay a fee on YouTube and they let you use the track without claims. It’s basically YouTube acting as a licensing intermediary.
• Alternative: Use YouTube’s library or royalty-free music: The simplest way, if you don’t want to go through formal licensing, is to use music from YouTube’s Audio Library (free tracks YouTube provides that are safe to use) or other royalty-free libraries. These come pre-cleared for YouTube usage so you won’t get strikes. There are many sources of music made for creators that either require a subscription or are free with attribution.
• If you have the license: Let’s say you went through the effort to license a famous song for your YouTube video. Once you upload, Content ID might still flag it. But YouTube has a dispute process. You could dispute the claim by providing proof of your license. Ideally, the rights holder can whitelist your video (so Content ID ignores it), but that often requires a direct contact with them. If you paid for a license, you likely have a direct line or a note in the license that the rights holder should ensure no Content ID issues. Disputing can take time and you have to be careful (if you misrepresent, you can get a strike). But a genuine license is a solid defense – you’d tell them “I have a synchronization license from [Publisher] dated [date].” If valid, the claimant should release the claim.

In summary: Legally, using any commercial music in a YouTube video requires getting permission. The reality is many people use music without permission and rely on Content ID’s system of either monetization or blocking. This is not strictly legal, but it’s an arrangement that has become commonplace. However, you run the risk of blocks or loss of monetization. If you want to do it by the book (and especially if you’re a business or professional), you should license the music or stick to music that’s free to use.

How can I legally use music in live streams (Twitch, Facebook Live, etc.)?

Legally using music in live streams requires you to have performance rights for the music and, ideally, any necessary sync or mechanical rights if the stream is recorded – in practice, most user live stream platforms do not give you a free pass, so you should use music that you have permission for (like royalty-free tracks or licensed tracks) to avoid takedowns.
Live streaming is tricky because it’s like a live broadcast: playing copyrighted music without permission is still infringement. Key considerations:

• Twitch and others: Platforms like Twitch and Facebook Live have been pressured by music rightsholders to police unauthorized music use. Twitch, for instance, has deals with some labels for streaming rights of music in the background, but generally they do not cover streamers to freely use popular music. Twitch’s policy: using copyrighted music you don’t have rights to can lead to your past streams (VODs and clips) being muted or DMCA takedowns which translate into strikes on your channel.
  
• Live performance vs. recorded: If you just play music during a live stream and you don’t save the stream, it’s a bit like ephemeral – but many platforms allow viewers to replay content (VODs). The moment it’s recorded, it’s definitely an unauthorized copy. Even if it’s not recorded, technically it was a public performance that wasn’t licensed (since platforms usually don’t cover it fully).
  
• Licensing needed: In a perfect world, to stream music you’d need a performance license for the platform (the platform might handle some of this blanket with PROs) and if you plan to keep it, sync/mechanical for the archive. But individual streamers cannot realistically license every song like a TV network would. That’s why the safe route is to only use music that is cleared for streaming use.
  
• What’s allowed: Many streamers use royalty-free music or game soundtracks that allow it. Twitch has introduced a library called “Soundtrack by Twitch” which provides stream-safe music (they got licenses for those tracks to be used in streams). Similarly, YouTube live or Facebook might have their libraries or you can use any music you have rights to (like from a subscription service that covers streaming). Some indie labels even give blanket permission to streamers (e.g., MonsterCat music if you have a subscription).
  
• DMCA on streams: If you play a copyrighted song on Twitch, two things happen: the live might go unnoticed at the time, but later Twitch’s automated detection will mute the audio in archived videos, and the rights holder can issue a DMCA takedown on that archived video (which counts as a strike). Three strikes and you’re out. For live, they typically won’t cut you off in real-time (though it’s possible on some platforms if automated detection is quick, like on Facebook sometimes).
  
• So how to do it legally:
  
• Use music from streamer-safe libraries (e.g., Epidemic Sound offers streamers a license as long as they are subscribed).
• Use public domain or your own original music.
• If you want to, say, DJ a set on a stream with popular songs, technically you’d need to have performance rights (like a venue would). There are some services that have started licensing DJ mixes for streams, but it’s complicated. Many DJs got takedowns in 2020 on Instagram, etc., due to copyright.
• Some games include licensed soundtracks and have a “streamer mode” to disable music because the game developers only got license for game play, not for public broadcast of the music. That shows how granular it can be.
• Platform responsibilities: Platforms like Twitch currently rely on DMCA (they react to takedown notices). They don’t provide a blanket license to cover user’s music use (unlike radio or a curated streaming service – user-generated content is handled differently legally). This may change in future if deals are struck, but as of now, streamers should be careful.
  

In summary: Just because it’s a “live” stream doesn’t mean music use is automatically allowed. The safe approach: only use music you have rights to (either because it’s royalty-free, you composed it, it’s provided by a licensed library, or the platform explicitly cleared it). Otherwise, you risk your stream being muted or your channel receiving copyright strikes.

Can I use music in my Instagram or TikTok videos?

If you use copyrighted music in an Instagram or TikTok video without a license, you rely on the platform’s policies – Instagram and TikTok have some music usage agreements for personal and story posts, but it can be risky for certain uses or business accounts. Legally, you would still need a license, but the platforms provide libraries of music that are safe to use within their apps.
Here’s how it breaks down:

• Platform-provided music vs. external: Both Instagram and TikTok have built-in music libraries. For example, on Instagram Stories/Reels, you can select music from their library to include. That music is there because Instagram/Facebook has licensing deals with music companies to allow personal use in those contexts. Similarly, TikTok has a huge library of popular songs for users to lip-sync or dance to. If you add music through their official library/stickers, it’s generally allowed by that platform’s license for user-generated content. This means the rights holders have agreed (likely for a royalty cut or promotional value) to let that music be used in user videos on that platform. So using the in-app music tools is usually safe – your video won’t be taken down because the platform already has permission for those tracks.
• Uploading a video with music externally: If you make a video outside the app (like in a video editor) and it contains a copyrighted song, when you upload it, the platform’s detection might kick in. Instagram might mute or block the video if it detects unlicensed music, especially for longer duration. They have guidelines – e.g., they often allow shorter clips and discourage long music-only videos. TikTok videos by nature often revolve around known songs, and TikTok’s model has been quite permissive (likely because they have deals – TikTok exploded by using music legally via partnerships). But on Instagram, non-reels regular video posts might be more restricted. Facebook/Instagram will sometimes give a warning “Your video is muted because it contains music X which wasn’t licensed for use.” They do that to avoid DMCA issues with record labels.
• Commercial use: If you’re a business (say using Instagram for marketing) or you have a business account, the music library might be limited due to licensing differences. Some tracks are only licensed for personal use, not for brands or commercial entities. Business accounts on Instagram often have a smaller selection of music (mostly royalty-free or owner-uploaded) because of that. Legally, a business using popular music in an ad or promotional post should get a license. If they just attach a trending song, they risk it being flagged or later a copyright claim.
• TikTok specifics: TikTok’s whole ecosystem encourages using trending sounds/music. They’ve secured licenses for a lot of music for this creative purpose (often because it boosts the song’s popularity). However, if you use music on TikTok outside their catalog or if you reuse someone’s original sound that includes unlicensed music, it might get removed or your video could be silent to other viewers. TikTok tends to have fewer immediate blocks than Instagram, but they do take down some content if rights holders complain.
• So what should you do? If you’re an individual making fun videos, using the app’s provided music features is usually fine. If you’re making a more formal video and want to include a full-length song, legally you need a sync license. But realistically, most individuals don’t do that – they either accept the risk or trust the platform’s allowances. Many times, short clips (like under 15-30 seconds) go unnoticed or are tolerated as promotional for the song. But any longer usage can trigger automated systems.
• Alternate approach: Use royalty-free or original music for background if you want zero issues. Instagram also offers a library of free tracks (separate from mainstream songs) specifically for creators who want no copyright concerns.

In essence: TikTok and Instagram have changed how music is shared, largely by making deals to incorporate mainstream music into the user experience. If you stick to their official offerings, you’re generally covered under their umbrella license for that platform. Taking a song outside those confines is legally like anywhere else – you’d need permission. And using those songs outside the platform (e.g., downloading a TikTok and posting on YouTube with the music) could cause issues on other platforms that don’t have the same deal. Always be mindful of the context and platform.

What licenses do I need for an advertisement or commercial?

For a commercial (advertisement), you will need a synchronization license for the song and a master use license for the recording, just as with any video, but you may also need to negotiate additional usage rights such as for promotional uses, cutdowns, or exclusivity since ads often require broad, all-media usage and sometimes exclusivity.
Using music in advertising is a specialized area of licensing, often with high stakes and high fees:

• Sync and Master for Ad: Fundamentally, it’s the same as film – you need permission from the publisher and label. Advertisers typically seek “all media, worldwide, in perpetuity” because an ad might run on TV, internet, maybe be shown at trade shows, archived online, etc. Sometimes they limit term (like a 1-year campaign) but keep media broad. The negotiation will cover where the ad will run (TV, web, radio, etc.), which countries/markets, how long, and if it includes things like use in social media, YouTube, etc.. Most of the time, an ad sync license covers use of the song in the ad itself and the airing of that ad.
• Fees: Music for ads can be very expensive because a popular song in a big commercial is highly valuable exposure (and association). It’s not unusual for well-known songs to go for hundreds of thousands of dollars for a major ad campaign, especially if it’s exclusive to a brand. Smaller regional ads or lesser-known music can be much cheaper, of course.
• Exclusivity: Sometimes advertisers want exclusivity – meaning that song can’t be used by another competitor or in another ad, at least for a time. This would be written into the license. For example, a car company using a song might ask that the artist/publisher not license it to any other car company for a year. This exclusivity drives the price up since it’s asking the music owner to potentially forego other deals. Not all licenses have this; plenty of songs have been in multiple ads (just not usually airing at the same time for competitors).
• Adaptation and edits: Ad licenses might also cover the right to use only parts of the song, to make edits, or even adaptations (like changing lyrics or creating a remix for the ad). If the ad is a 30-second spot, the music might be cut down. Most sync licenses allow you to edit the music to fit (which is under the adaptation right), but if you want to change lyrics to mention the product, that typically needs special approval and might not be allowed unless the artist is involved (advertising use of lyrics can trigger separate concerns, and the name of the artist/product mention might need its own clearance).
• In-context/out-of-context: For trailers or ads using film music, there’s concept of in-context vs out-of-context (not too relevant for original commercials, but if reusing footage from something). For an ad, if you license a song, typically you can use it as you please in that ad, and also in cut-downs (like if you have a 15-second version and a 30-second version, you’d clarify if the license fee covers all cut-down variations).
• Performance rights: If the ad will be broadcast on TV or radio, performance royalties will be generated (the TV/radio station’s blanket PRO licenses cover that, so the advertiser doesn’t handle it – the composer/publisher will get paid via PROs for the airings). But that’s separate from the sync license fee which is upfront.
• Example: Suppose Coca-Cola wants to use a famous pop song in a global ad campaign. They will reach out to the publisher and label: request usage “in a 60-second commercial for Coca-Cola, to air on television, internet (including YouTube and social media), and theaters worldwide, for 1 year, starting X date.” They might request an option to extend for another year for additional fee. They might also request exclusivity in the soft-drink category so Pepsi can’t use the same song concurrently. The music owner evaluates: big brand, global, very broad – they quote a high fee, let’s say $500,000 for the year. Coca-Cola decides if it’s worth it, or maybe negotiates down with a shorter term or limited media. Once agreed, they sign a license and pay. Now they have the right to use that song in their ad. When the year ends, if they want to keep using the ad, they either stop using it or renew the license (or the song must be removed).

For smaller scale: a local business might license a jingle or a lesser-known song just in a local region for a few months for much less money, but the process is similar, just scaled down. Sometimes small advertisers also use stock music or commission custom music to avoid expensive licensing.

So, the licenses you need for an advertisement are essentially sync and master licenses. You approach it with all the details of the ad campaign. It’s highly advised to have a music supervisor or attorney handle ad music licensing because the negotiations can be complex. Many brands these days opt for either famous songs to get attention (with big budgets) or cheaper alternatives like production music or emerging artists to save money.

Do I need a license to play music in my business (store or restaurant)?

Yes. If you play music in a business (like a retail store, restaurant, bar, or office with public visitors), you typically need a public performance license from performing rights organizations (PROs) to do so legally.
Here’s what that entails:

• Why a license: When you play music in a commercial establishment, it’s considered a “public performance” of the music. The copyright law gives composers and publishers the exclusive right to authorize public performances of their works. So when you turn on the radio or stream songs in your cafe, every song that plays is technically being publicly performed to your customers. Without a license, each of those performances is infringement, even if you own the radio or paid for a Spotify account (personal music purchases don’t cover public use).
• PROs (ASCAP, BMI, etc.): Generally, businesses obtain licenses from the PROs, since obtaining song-by-song permission is impractical. A PRO license (often called a “blanket license”) will cover the performance of any music in that PRO’s repertoire in your establishment. Most businesses need to get licenses from all major PROs to cover the broad range of music (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC in the US, and now GMR (Global Music Rights) as a newer one). Each PRO license then authorizes you to play songs from their collection (which collectively is basically all commercial music) and they will handle paying the songwriters.
• How to get: You contact the PRO (or they might contact you – PROs monitor businesses). They’ll ask about your business: size, occupancy, how music is used (background only? live bands? DJs? TV/radio?), and how many nights of live music, etc. They have rate schedules. For example, a small retail shop under X square feet might pay a few hundred dollars a year to each PRO for background music usage. A restaurant with live music might pay more, scaled by capacity. If you use a background music service (like Mood Media, formerly Muzak, or streaming music for business), those services often include PRO fees in what you pay them – basically they act as an intermediary. But if you just play personal Spotify or CDs in the store, you still owe PRO fees (note: consumer Spotify accounts are not allowed for business use per their terms; Spotify has a separate “Spotify for Business” partner solution that covers licensing).
• Exemptions: The U.S. has a limited exemption for small businesses using radio/TV broadcasts: If your establishment is below a certain size (less than 2,000 sq ft for stores, 3,750 sq ft for food/beverage venues) and you play just a “regular” radio or TV (not more than a certain number of speakers/TVs and not charging admission), you might fall under a statutory exemption (17 U.S.C. §110(5), often called the “business exemption”) where you don’t need a license for playing radio/TV. This was intended so small shops with a radio in the corner don’t get hounded by PROs. However, this exemption is quite specific – it doesn’t cover playing CDs, tapes, or your own playlist, and if you exceed the equipment limits (like too many speakers or using a custom sound system), you’re not exempt. Many businesses prefer to just get licenses to be safe, or use licensed background services.
• Live music: If you have live performances of cover songs, the venue is responsible for PRO fees. The band doesn’t have to get permission for each cover if the venue is licensed. So bars that host cover bands should definitely have PRO licenses. PRO agents do check venues – if they find a bar without a license that’s having music, they could take action (usually they’ll strongly encourage you to sign up for a license, or risk legal trouble).
• Penalties: If you ignore this and a PRO catches you, they can sue for infringement. There have been cases of small restaurants being sued for a few songs and facing damages and legal fees that far outweigh the cost of the license would have been. Often they’ll send warning letters first.
• So practically: Contact ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, disclose your music use, get the annual licenses. Some small business owners find it a hassle, but it’s part of the cost of doing business if you want music. Alternatively, some only play royalty-free music or public domain music (there are services that provide that) to avoid fees – but then you can’t play popular music, which might be what you want for atmosphere.

In summary, yes, you need a license. Usually three (one from each PRO). The good news is these licenses are blanket and not too complicated once set up. They allow you to legally play radio, CDs, streaming, etc. for your customers. Without them, you’re taking a legal risk, and it’s considered unfair to musicians because you’d be using their work commercially without compensation. The PRO fees ensure the music creators get something for the public use of their songs in your business.

How can I legally play music at a public event or venue?

To legally play music at a public event or venue, the venue (or event organizer) should obtain public performance licenses from the relevant PROs, which will cover the live or recorded music performed there.
This scenario is similar to the business context, but let’s detail events:

• Who’s responsible: Generally, the venue hosting the event is responsible for performance licensing. Many venues (concert halls, hotels, conference centers, wedding halls, etc.) already have blanket licenses with ASCAP, BMI, etc. that cover any events on their premises. For example, a hotel ballroom that frequently hosts weddings or parties often pays annual fees to PROs so that any band or DJ performing there is automatically covered. If you’re organizing an event, it’s wise to check with the venue if they’re licensed. If not, you as the organizer might need to get a one-time event license from PROs.
• Type of event:
• Weddings/Private Parties: These are somewhat gray because they are private, by invitation, not open to the general public. Technically, even a private event in a rented venue is still a public performance under copyright law (since it’s outside a domestic circle). However, often PROs still expect licensing for wedding bands or DJs, which usually is through the venue. Most couples don’t individually license songs for their wedding; it falls under the venue’s blanket license, or it’s simply not enforced vigorously in purely private contexts. But legally, someone should have the license (the DJ or venue).
• Concerts/Live events: If you have a live concert where a band plays cover songs, the venue’s PRO license covers the performance of those covers. If the band only plays originals, they are playing their own music (they wouldn’t sue themselves), but even then, often the setlist is reported and PROs pay the songwriter (which might be the band members themselves via PRO).
• Public gatherings (fairs, parades): If they play music over loudspeakers or have live bands, typically the organizing entity should get a PRO event license. PROs often have rates for festivals or events that aren’t in a single licensed venue.
• One-time license: If no blanket license exists, you can contact PROs for a single event. For instance, ASCAP has “event licenses” for things like a concert or even for a 5K race that wants to play music at the start/finish. They usually ask for details (attendance, if admission is charged, etc.) and quote a fee. Sometimes it’s modest, sometimes more if a large attendance.
• Music source: The license requirement is the same whether music is live or played from a device. Live performers, if doing covers, do not individually license each cover – the performance license covers it (the PRO will collect from venue and ensure original composers get their share). If it’s recorded music (DJ set, playlist), likewise the performance license covers it.
• Exemptions: As mentioned, some specific exemptions: educational institution events for teaching, religious services (so music in the course of a worship service is exempt from needing PRO license). But if the church hosts a secular concert not part of worship, that wouldn’t be exempt. Also, if you have a purely private home party (in your house/backyard), that’s not considered a “public” performance. But once it’s in a public space or commercial venue, it’s public.
• Practical enforcement: PROs do have agents that monitor clubs, events, etc. Often they focus on places that regularly host music. A one-off charity event might not be on their radar, but legally it should be licensed. There have been stories of even smaller events getting surprise contacts from PRO reps. They’re more lenient with truly small community events, but bigger ones they will pursue.
• Bottom line: If you run an event where music is a feature, it’s safest to either ensure the venue has PRO coverage or reach out to PROs yourself. The cost often depends on factors like if you charged admission or how large the event is (bigger, commercial events pay more than free small community gatherings in PRO rate schedules).

Thus, to play music publicly, someone needs that performance license. It’s usually easier than you think because many common venues are already licensed. If you’re playing pre-recorded music, another angle: some might use a service like a DJ pool or background music provider that includes rights, but typically those still rely on venue PRO licensing for final legality.

Is it easier or cheaper to license music from independent artists than famous songs?

Generally, yes – music from independent or up-and-coming artists is often easier and cheaper to license than big hits from famous artists, because indies are usually more approachable and have lower fee expectations, though you still must clear rights in the same way.
Here’s why and what to consider:

• Access and approval: Famous songs usually involve large publishers and labels with bureaucratic processes and high demand. Indie artists, especially if they own their own rights (master and publishing), can often negotiate directly or through a small team. They might be thrilled to have their music featured and respond quickly. Famous artists’ teams may take longer and sometimes outright decline uses they don’t see as fitting the artist’s brand. Independent artists are typically more open to opportunities for exposure.
• Cost: The fee for a big hit by a well-known artist can be enormous. Indie artists, having less exposure, will charge much less. Some might even license for free or a token amount if it’s a non-profit project or for exposure (though one shouldn’t assume “for exposure” will always get free music, but some indies do it). It’s not uncommon to license a song from a local or independent artist for a few hundred dollars or maybe a few thousand, versus potentially tens of thousands for a major-label song (). This depends on the indie artist’s popularity too – a moderately known indie act might still ask for a decent fee.
• Rights complexity: Many independent artists own both their composition and recording rights (especially if they’re not signed to a major label or publisher). This is great because you can do “one-stop licensing” – you talk to one person for both the song and the recording. With major songs, you might need to clear multiple publishers plus a label. However, note that “independent” doesn’t always mean self-owned. Some indie artists have publishing deals or licenses with libraries. But in general, clearance is simpler since you often deal with a single point of contact.
• Negotiation: Indie artists may be more flexible about terms – e.g., they might give you a broad license without much upcharge. Majors will be very specific and often limit term/territory unless you pay premium. You might convince an indie to grant perpetuity worldwide for a reasonable flat fee, whereas a major publisher might insist on a 5-year term at a high price then renegotiate.
• Quality and fit: One challenge is you might want that specific famous song because of its cultural resonance. Licensing a sound-alike from an indie might not have the same impact or recognition. But if the goal is just to have good music that supports your project, there are countless talented independent musicians whose work can serve perfectly. There are even music libraries that specialize in indie music (sometimes called “needle drop libraries” or catalogs where indies place their tracks for licensing).
• Personal connection: If you personally know or can contact the indie artist, the process can be very human and straightforward. I.e., email them or their manager, discuss usage, maybe they send a simple contract or even just email permission (though you should get a signed license document to be safe). Many will be happy just to be asked, and the negotiation is more about what you can pay.
• Example: Suppose you want a cool electronic background track for a short film. Getting a Billboard-charting EDM track would be nearly impossible on a low budget. But you might find a talented independent producer on SoundCloud or Bandcamp who has the perfect vibe. You reach out; they might license it for $200 and a credit. You get a signed agreement, done. Versus chasing a big name which might cost $20k or simply not be available to you.
• One consideration: Ensure the indie is truly independent (they haven’t sold rights or have co-writers who are with PROs/publishers that complicate it). If they are independent but registered with a PRO, that’s fine – PRO doesn’t stop them from licensing; it just means performances will generate royalties which the PRO collects (not your worry). Just be clear on rights ownership when dealing with them.

In conclusion, independent music is a goldmine for affordable licensing. It’s often a win-win: the project gets great music at a low cost, and the indie artist gets usage and exposure (and a licensing fee). There’s a whole industry of “music licensing companies” that represent independent artists’ music to film/TV because of this dynamic – they provide music supervisors with easier, cheaper alternatives to mainstream hits.

Can I use music in a video game or mobile app I’m developing?

Yes, but you must license the music just as you would for a film – for a video game or app, you need a synchronization license for the composition and a master license for the recording, covering use of the music within the game/app.
Using music in games/apps has some specific considerations:

• In-game music is like a sync: When you put music in a game (whether it’s background music, menu music, or a song triggered during gameplay), you are pairing music with an interactive medium. It’s not a traditional “sync with visual” situation, but it’s still a reproduction and integration of music into software, which requires permission. Typically, game developers license music from composers (original score) or license existing tracks. If it’s existing tracks, they negotiate with publishers and labels for a sync license to use the music in the game. In contracts, they might call it “videogame license” but it’s analogous to a sync.
• Term/territory: Games usually are distributed worldwide and indefinitely (once a game is sold, it could be played years later), so usually they seek rights “in perpetuity, worldwide” for that game. You wouldn’t want your game music license to expire or exclude countries, because you can’t control where the game goes easily. This needs to be in the agreement and will affect cost.
• Media: A game license should cover the use in-game, and possibly related advertising (some game music licenses allow use of the track in a game trailer, others treat that separately). If you want to use the music in promotional videos for the game, clarify that in the license (“the sync license covers use in the game and in marketing materials for the game”).
• Interactive considerations: Some songs might be handled differently if they can be affected by gameplay (though usually that doesn’t matter to the rights, only to implementation).
• Platform issues: Some platforms (like if you’re making a small web game or using certain engines) might have libraries of music assets you can use. But for a commercial release with known music, it’s on you to clear it.
• Licensed soundtrack: Many games, especially sports or racing games, have a soundtrack of popular songs (like FIFA or GTA series). Those are heavily negotiated sync licenses for each track – similar to a compilation of songs. Each song gets licensed for inclusion in the game. Often music labels like game placements for exposure, but they still charge.
• Fees for games: Depending on game size and music popularity, fees can vary. Indie devs might license indie music relatively cheaply. Big games with chart hits pay a lot. There’s also a concept of perpetual buyout for some music libraries – game devs sometimes use royalty-free or library music where they pay once and have forever use.
• Original score: Alternatively, you can hire a composer to create original music for your game. That way you either own it (if work-for-hire) or have an exclusive license for your game. Many indie devs go this route to avoid licensing complexities and to have unique music. If you hire a composer, ensure your contract gives you rights to use the music in the game (and ideally in trailers, etc.) without additional fees.
• Post-release: If your game allows user streaming or content creation (players streaming gameplay), sometimes the presence of licensed music can cause issues (like we discussed with Twitch – e.g., some game developers include a “streamer mode” to disable licensed music so streamers don’t get DMCA claims). If you license music for a game, you might want to ensure you have performance rights as well to cover streaming context, but usually the onus falls on streamers to mute music. For a thorough approach, some deals include language to permit broadcasting of the game with the music as incidental. Not all do, but some forward-thinking devs consider this now.
• Mobile apps: If it’s an app (not a game) using music, e.g., an exercise app with background music, you would similarly license tracks. If the app is interactive with user-selected tracks, then you’re basically like a music service and need a whole different type of license (like Spotify-level licensing, which is huge). But if the app just has a set of built-in tracks for ambiance, treat it like game licensing.
• Licensing approach: Contact rights holders for desired songs, get quotes for “use in X game”. There are also agencies that specialize in game music licensing. They will consider units or distribution – sometimes deals have royalties if a game sells over X units (less common now; usually it’s flat fee because tracking game sales can be messy).

Example: You’re developing a racing game and want 5 indie rock songs to play on different tracks. You reach out to those bands or their labels. You say you want to license the song for use in the game “Super Racer”, to be distributed globally on PC, perpetually. Perhaps each indie asks for $1,000. You agree, sign sync/master licenses. Now you include those audio files in your game, and you’re covered. If you had tried to get a famous song (like a Rolling Stones track), the process is similar but the cost might be exorbitant or they might decline if the game content isn’t something they want (some artists avoid violent games, etc.).

One more thing: Mechanical rights – for a game, are you making copies of the music? Yes, when people download or install the game, the music files are copied. However, typically the sync license for a game is drafted to cover all necessary rights (including the reproduction of the music as part of the game software). You won’t go separately to Harry Fox for mechanical, because that’s not set up for games; it’s one negotiation with publisher to allow the reproduction in the interactive product. So don’t worry if you don’t hear “mechanical” – just ensure the license is broad enough to cover distribution of copies of the game with the music embedded.

So, treat game music like you would film: get the rights, pay the fee, use accordingly.

Can I use someone else’s music in a nonprofit or charity project?

Not automatically – being a nonprofit or for charity doesn’t exempt you from copyright law. You still need to license music for a nonprofit project unless the use qualifies for a specific exception (rare), though sometimes rights holders may reduce or waive fees for charitable uses at their discretion.
Important points:

• No blanket exemption for nonprofits: People often think “if it’s for a good cause, we can use any music.” Unfortunately, copyright law doesn’t have a general charity exemption. Whether you’re a commercial entity or a nonprofit, using someone’s copyrighted music in a video, event, etc., requires permission. The only slight difference is in potential damages – a court might be lenient or rights holders may choose not to sue an innocuous charity use, but that’s not a guarantee or a legal protection.
• Licensing costs: Some music owners might offer discounted or even free licenses for nonprofit organizations, especially if the use aligns with an artist’s values or is seen as positive PR. For example, an artist might let a charity use their song in a campaign video for free or a token $1 license. But you absolutely should ask and get that in writing. Don’t assume you can just do it and they’ll overlook it. Many big songs are owned by corporations that will still enforce rights regardless of your status.
• Fair use: Could nonprofit/educational use count as fair use? Simply being nonprofit doesn’t automatically mean fair use. Fair use is more about transformation, commentary, etc., not the user’s profit status alone. If your use is simply using music as background or to evoke emotion in a charity video, that’s not fair use. Fair use might apply if, say, you are commenting on or critiquing the music itself in an educational video. Otherwise, you must license.
• Fundraising events: If you have a charity event and want music, all the same performance licensing rules apply (the venue needs PRO licenses, etc.). Nonprofit doesn’t mean they can have a band play covers without a license. However, some PROs have different rate schedules for nonprofits or charge less.
• Educational institutions: They often still get PRO licenses for campus events (outside of strict classroom use).
• Approach to license: If you’re a nonprofit and want to use a known song, explain your cause when reaching out. Some publishers/artists will be sympathetic. Others might not budge, especially large catalogs where each use must be monetized. There’s a known practice: some films or documentaries get “favored nations” or courtesy rates when the subject is important (like a civil rights doc might get a pivotal song for less if the artist supports that). But that’s case-by-case.
• Public domain & CC: If you can’t afford licensing, you might lean on public domain music or Creative Commons licensed music that allows nonprofit use. Many CC licenses have NonCommercial clauses that allow free use as long as it’s not commercial – a nonprofit could be considered noncommercial (though if it’s fundraising, some might argue there’s money involved, but typically it’s fine as noncommercial). Check license terms. A CC BY (requires attribution) or CC BY-NC (noncommercial) track could be great for a charity video at no cost.
• Original music: Alternatively, find local artists willing to donate music to your cause, or commission someone to create original music pro bono or at low cost. That sidesteps licensing issues since you’d have permission directly.
• Example: A charity makes a video about their mission and wants to use “What a Wonderful World”. They contact the publisher. The publisher might say, “Standard rate is $5,000, but for a 501(c)(3) charity, we’ll do $500,” or they might say “No charge, just credit Louis Armstrong’s estate,” or they might say “$5,000 firm.” It depends. Without asking, if the charity just uses the song, they risk YouTube blocking it or the publisher sending a cease-and-desist or invoice. Better to clear it upfront or choose a different piece of music if cost is an issue.

In short, nonprofit projects must follow the same rules. The difference is often in approach and negotiation – you might find more goodwill, but you can’t assume it. Always seek permission for copyrighted music use, regardless of profit motive.

Do I need a license for music in a school project or student video?

If the project is strictly for a class and not distributed publicly, you might be okay under educational exemptions or fair use arguments, but the moment it’s shared publicly (e.g., uploaded online), you technically need to license the music.
Let’s break it down:

• Classroom presentation: If you’re a student making a video for a class presentation, and you include copyrighted music, this is often considered okay in practice because it falls under face-to-face teaching activities at a nonprofit educational institution (17 U.S.C. §110(1) in the U.S.) – this exemption allows performance/display of works in the classroom for teaching. So if your teacher and classmates watch your video, no one’s going to sue over that; it’s a limited educational use. This is a legal and practical safe zone, often called the “classroom use” exemption. However, that exemption doesn’t cover distributing copies or posting it online – it’s meant for the classroom context only.
• Fair use for education: Even outside the explicit classroom exemption, a student might claim fair use if the use of music is integral for commentary or analogous to how a teacher might use it in class. But if you just use a Coldplay song as background to your biology project video, it’s not exactly commentary or criticism of the song – it’s just unlicensed background music. That’s not a strong fair use claim; it’s just tolerated because it’s private.
• Posting online: Many students like to upload their projects to YouTube or social media (to share with friends, portfolios, etc.). The minute you do that, you’re in the public domain of usage. Content ID may flag it, or not, depending on the music. Legally, once it’s public, the educational context defense weakens. If YouTube flags it, they may mute or monetize it on behalf of the rights owner. Probably no legal action beyond that, but technically it’s not licensed. Some educational institutions have internal systems (like password-protected sites) to share student videos which might still be considered “closed” environment akin to class – that’s safer than fully public YouTube.
• Competitions or film fests: If a student video with copyrighted music is submitted to a contest or festival, that festival might ask for proof of music clearance. Student or not, festivals often require that all content be cleared. So that’s a scenario where you’d need to license or swap out the music.
• School concerts/assemblies: Slightly different scenario – playing music in school events is allowed if it’s instructional or in a classroom. But if the school event is, say, a talent show open to the public, that could require a PRO license (though many schools have blanket agreements or rely on educational use allowances).
• Advisable practice: Educators often advise students to use royalty-free or CC music for projects, especially if they plan to publish or share them. There are lots of free resources, and it’s a good habit. But strictly for a graded assignment viewed in class, using popular music is quite common and rarely an issue (it falls in a gray but accepted area).
• So license needed? If you truly wanted to be 100% legal, you’d license it if distributing. But for purely in-class, no. For beyond class, yes ideally.
• Consequence: It’s extremely unlikely a rights holder would go after a student for using a song in a school project unless it goes viral or something. The worst likely outcome is a takedown or mute on a public platform, not a lawsuit. But that’s not a substitute for a license, just an observation of enforcement priorities.

In sum: For a private educational use, you don’t need to formally license – educational exceptions cover it. For any use outside that scope (like online showcase), you should treat it like any other project and either get permission or use music that doesn’t need permission.

Do churches need a license to play or perform music during services?

Generally, music performed or sung as part of a worship service is exempt from public performance licensing in the U.S., so churches do not need a PRO license for the live music in regular services. However, if they record, stream, or use music outside of services (concerts, events, making copies of lyrics, etc.), they likely need licenses such as church streaming licenses or print licenses.
This can be a bit nuanced:

• Exemption for worship: U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. §110(3)) provides that performances of religious music in the course of services at a place of worship or religious assembly are not infringements. This means a church can have its choir sing hymns or even copyrighted contemporary songs, or play recordings, as part of the service, without needing to pay performance royalties. Similarly, an organist can play prelude/postlude, etc. The idea is to not burden worship practices with licensing. This exemption is fairly broad for the service context.
• What it doesn’t cover:
• If the church puts on a concert that’s not part of a service (say a Friday night ticketed Christian rock concert or even a free Christmas concert open to the community), that might not be exempt because it’s not strictly a worship service. For those, churches often obtain licenses or rely on the performers to ensure coverage. PROs have been known to ask churches to pay for licenses if they have regular non-worship music events.
• Broadcasting/Streaming: The exemption doesn’t cover broadcasting the music beyond the place of worship. So if a church live-streams its services online or on TV, or records and posts them, that is a public performance outside the physical worship gathering and usually does require permission. Many churches get a CCLI license or similar (CCLI is an organization that offers blanket licenses for churches for things like projecting lyrics, making arrangements, and also has an add-on for streaming). CCLI covers a lot of contemporary Christian songs for certain uses. For hymns or public domain, no issue, but for modern songs, a streaming license like CCLI’s “Streaming Plus” is used to cover those when broadcast online.
• Reproducing lyrics or music: If a church prints song lyrics in bulletins or projects them on a screen, that’s reproduction – they typically need a license (again, something like CCLI covers printing lyrics or making song sheets for the congregation). Many churches subscribe to CCLI which gives them the right to use a vast catalog of Christian music in these ways (not mainstream secular songs though).
• Sound recordings: Playing an actual copyrighted recording (CD/MP3) in service is considered part of service so performance is okay. But if the church makes recordings that include that music (like records the whole service with the music and gives out CDs), then they would need to clear that because now it’s a copy/distribution of the music. Often churches avoid selling recordings of performances of copyrighted songs without permission. Some smaller ones ignore it, but technically if you distribute recordings, it’s like making an album of covers – which needs mechanical licenses.
• Non-U.S.: Laws vary. Some countries might not have the same explicit exemption for worship, but often the PROs have a nominal fee or understanding for religious services. In many places, churches do purchase an annual license (e.g., in UK, CCLI and PRS licenses).
• So ironically: During the service: fine. On the church’s YouTube channel later: not fine unless covered. Many churches had to navigate this during the COVID-19 pandemic with streaming; many signed up for streaming licenses to legally include music in their online services.
• Summary: If you’re a church music director: you don’t need ASCAP/BMI for just Sunday services with congregation present. But if you livestream, you either mute music or have a streaming license. And for lyric projection and sheet distribution, use something like CCLI to stay legal.

Can I use a popular song in a wedding video or slideshow I create?

Legally, to use a popular song in a wedding video (whether you’re the videographer or making your own slideshow), you should get a sync license for it – but in practice many people use songs without permission for personal keepsakes, running the risk of issues if it’s shared online.
Details:

• Personal use vs public: If you create a slideshow or video of your wedding and only watch it privately at home, that’s personal use. Even if it technically contains an unauthorized copy of a song, no one is likely to object because it’s not distributed. The legal issue arises when you share it – for example, uploading it to YouTube or social media. Many couples do that to share with friends/family. At that point, using a popular song as background might trigger Content ID on YouTube or Facebook’s copyright filters.
• Professional videographers: Many wedding videographers add popular music to the videos they produce for clients (because the couple requests “our song” or something). Strictly speaking, the videographer should license the music for that use. However, most small-time videographers don’t go through the expensive licensing process for a one-off client video – it’s often impractical and cost-prohibitive (imagine paying $1000 to license a song for a wedding video when the client is paying $2000 for the whole video – it doesn’t fit business-wise). As a workaround, some videographers use royalty-free music libraries and avoid mainstream songs to sidestep this. Others take the “under the radar” approach, giving the client the video with the song, advising them that if they put it online it might get flagged. It’s a widespread gray area in that industry.
• Licensing options: There aren’t easy consumer-level licensing options for popular songs for wedding videos. There’s a company called SongFreedom (now part of Pixelfilm Studios I think, also known as “Music Bed” or “Firefly”) that specifically offered music licensing for photographers/videographers – they had some mainstream songs and indie tracks that wedding videographers could license at a somewhat affordable rate per video. That’s one legal avenue if available.
• If you want to be fully legal: You’d contact the publisher/label and attempt to license the song for a “private video” use. They may have a standard fee or they might even say it’s not worth their time unless it’s a big distribution. Some rights holders might be lenient for a personal request – but most will still require a fee. It might not be extremely high if it’s just small use, but even a few hundred dollars is often too much for a casual user.
• Online sharing: If you upload the wedding video to YouTube with a hit song, one of a few things will happen: either it gets blocked/muted, or more likely it gets claimed and the music owner monetizes it (putting ads possibly). Since wedding videos aren’t usually monetized by the user, they might not care if an ad runs and the claimant takes revenue (there’s usually not huge view counts outside the family). So many people leave it at that. On Facebook or others, it might just be muted if detected.
• Risks: It’s very unlikely a music owner would sue an individual for using a song in a wedding video shared with family. They typically target bigger infringements. But professional videographers have on occasion gotten letters – I’ve heard of a few cases where a videographer advertised using certain songs and a label sent a cease and desist. It’s rare.
• What to do: If you want to avoid all risk: use licensed music (plenty of romantic royalty-free tracks). If you really want that popular song: you accept that it’s technically infringement but maybe “low risk.” Or pursue something like SongFreedom which had deals for that exact scenario.
• Analogies: It’s similar to making a mixtape for someone – personal, usually overlooked. But the difference is video and public display.

So while the correct answer is “get a license,” the realistic answer is many people use the song anyway because enforcement is low at that personal level. But a professional should ideally cover themselves either via licensing services or by educating the client. Some videographers put a clause that the final video is for personal home use and not cleared for public upload, shifting responsibility to the client.

Is it okay to use copyrighted music in a personal video if I’m not monetizing it?

Not necessarily – even if you don’t monetize, using copyrighted music without permission is still infringement. Monetization status might affect how the platform or copyright owner handles it (they might just claim the ad revenue), but it doesn’t make the use automatically legal.
Key points:

• Non-monetized doesn’t equal non-commercial: Posting a video publicly (even if you’re not making money) is still a public distribution. Copyright law doesn’t say “infringement only happens if you made money.” It’s about use without permission, regardless of profit. While the fact that you didn’t profit might reduce damages or make a rights holder more sympathetic, it’s not a defense by itself.
• Content ID behavior: On YouTube, if you use music and don’t monetize, the rights holder often will monetize by running ads or they might let it stay unmonetized, or block it. Many people think “I’m not making money, so it’s fine.” But the copyright owner might say, “Well, we want money, so we’ll monetize it ourselves.” That’s common – your video stays up but with ads benefiting the music owner. This can create a sort-of equilibrium where lots of videos use songs and the label just collects ad revenue from all of them. In a way, that’s an unofficial licensing via YouTube’s system. But it’s controlled by the music owner’s choice.
• Platform differences: On some platforms like Instagram, you’re never monetizing directly but they still might remove content if it’s copyrighted and not allowed. They don’t care that you’re not making money – they care that they have to enforce copyright.
• Legal risk: If you’re a private individual and not monetizing, you’re unlikely to get sued solely for that – there wouldn’t be much to gain financially. They’d more likely just have the content taken down. But that’s not a guarantee; they could issue a formal DMCA takedown which could lead to a strike or account issues.
• Moral/ethical: Some say “I gave credit to the artist and I’m not monetizing, so I’m morally okay.” Legally, that’s not a license, but many feel it’s a reasonable approach for fan content. Still, from the music owner’s perspective, unauthorized use is unauthorized use.
• Better safe: If you want zero hassle, use legal music (like royalty-free or get a license). If you really want a certain song and you’re fine with the copyright owner taking action like monetizing or tracking – many YouTubers do that knowingly.
• Example: A personal travel vlog with a popular song, not monetized – likely outcome: YouTube flags and the music owner puts ads on it or maybe just leaves it with a notice that it can’t be monetized by you. That might be fine for you. But if you later try to monetize your channel, those videos with claims could be an issue.
• Changing minds: A user might think “I won’t monetize this”, but later their video gets popular and they wish they could monetize – too late without removing the music.

In summary, not monetizing doesn’t get you off the hook. It might lower the chance of legal trouble because it’s seen as lower impact, but it’s not a free pass. Copyright holders primarily care about control and potential lost revenue. If you’re not earning money, they may simply ensure they earn any if there is monetization potential, but they still control whether the content stays up.

What happens if I use music without permission?

If you use copyrighted music without permission, you risk copyright infringement consequences: your content can be taken down or muted, you can receive copyright claims or strikes on platforms, and in worst cases you could face legal action requiring you to pay damages far exceeding any licensing fee.
There are different levels to what can happen:

• Online Platform Enforcement: On sites like YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram, using unlicensed music will usually trigger automated systems (like Content ID or similar). Common outcomes:
• Your video might be blocked or muted entirely (nobody can view it with sound or at all in certain regions).
• You might get a copyright claim which doesn’t remove the content but attaches the rights holder’s conditions (often monetizing the video on their behalf or tracking viewership).
• If the rights holder is not okay with your use, they might issue a DMCA takedown notice. This will remove the content and typically you’ll receive a formal strike or warning. On YouTube, for example, a takedown = a copyright strike. Too many strikes and your channel/account can be suspended or terminated. Even one strike can limit features temporarily.
• Streams could get interrupted or your account temporarily blocked from streaming if multiple violations occur (Twitch, for instance, will suspend accounts after several music takedowns).
• Legal Action: Beyond platform policing, the copyright owner has the right to sue for infringement. They could seek:
• Injunction: a court order to stop the infringement (which in online terms means take the video down, etc.).
• Monetary damages: In the U.S., they could seek either actual damages (like a license fee plus any demonstrable losses) or statutory damages. Statutory damages can be up to $150,000 per willful infringement (though usually much less if it’s not willful or especially harmful). The law allows these high amounts to deter infringement. In practice, for personal/small uses, it would likely be far lower or settled out of court for a smaller sum. Still, even a few thousand dollars is unpleasant if you could have licensed the song for $50.
• Most cases don’t make it to court for individuals, but notable ones have involved, say, businesses using music without license (bars, dance studios, etc., have been sued by PROs and ended up paying several thousand).
• Wasted effort: If your content is taken down, all the effort you put into making a video with that music might be lost or you have to re-edit with different music.
• Reputation/Channel risk: Repeated copyright issues might mark you as a repeat infringer, and platforms could terminate your account which is a huge setback if you had a following.
• No legal safe harbor for ignorance: “I didn’t know I needed permission” or “I credited the artist” is not a defense. It’s still infringement. Crediting the artist does not replace the license and does not immunize you.
• Comparison to cost: As one source said, the damages from infringement can be much more significant than the initial license would have cost. This is a key point to remember for commercial projects – skimping on licensing could lead to paying a lot more later.
• Examples: There have been viral examples like wedding videographers or small businesses being sued for using popular songs; sometimes they have to settle and pay fines. And on the big end, we’ve seen platform crackdowns (YouTube channels with music get deleted, etc.)

Realistically, content ID and platform policing handle 99% of casual infringements – they don’t sue everyone, they just manage it digitally. But you don’t want to be the edge case where a label’s lawyer decides to make an example.

So, if you use music without permission: expect at least a claim or removal. Continuing to do so can lead to account deletion. And theoretical legal fines loom, especially if it’s a business or someone generating revenue. It’s not worth the risk when there are legal alternatives.

How can I avoid copyright strikes or claims on YouTube when using music?

To avoid copyright issues on YouTube, use only music that you have rights to: either music you’ve licensed, music from YouTube’s copyright-safe libraries, or original/royalty-free music. If you use any amount of copyrighted music you don’t own, Content ID will likely flag it and could lead to claims or strikes.
Here are concrete strategies:

• Use YouTube’s Audio Library: YouTube offers a free Audio Library of music and sound effects that are safe to use in your videos. Some may require you to credit the artist, but they won’t trigger strikes or claims. This library is accessible in YouTube Studio. By using these tracks, you ensure no Content ID claims since they’re pre-cleared for YouTube.
• Use royalty-free music from reputable sources: There are many websites (some free, some paid) that provide royalty-free music. If truly royalty-free or properly licensed to you, these won’t cause claims. Examples include Alibi Music, Artlist, Epidemic Sound, PremiumBeat, AudioJungle, etc. Note: If using a subscription service like Epidemic, ensure your channel is linked so that they whitelist it. Epidemic, for example, will issue claims on channels not registered, even if you legally downloaded the music, until you connect your channel to show you’re a subscriber.
• License popular music through YouTube (Creator Music): As mentioned earlier, YouTube is rolling out Creator Music, which allows creators to either purchase a license or share revenue for certain mainstream songs. If available in your region, this is an option to use well-known tracks legally on YouTube without strikes. Otherwise, direct licensing outside of YouTube is an option but harder for individuals.
• Original music: If you compose or have a friend compose an original score for your video, obviously you won’t get strikes (just ensure it’s truly original and not sampling others).
• Public domain or Creative Commons music: Public domain music (and recordings, importantly) can be used freely. Some classical or folk music falls here, but beware that recordings of them might still be copyrighted. Creative Commons music can be used if it’s an appropriate license (e.g., CC BY or CC BY-SA are fine with credit; CC BY-NC is fine if your video is non-commercial; avoid any CC that isn’t allowed for your type of use, and attribute if required). CC libraries include sites like ccMixter, Free Music Archive (with filters), etc.
• Avoid known copyrighted music: Even a short 5-second clip can get flagged. There’s no guaranteed safe duration – Content ID can catch very short segments (). So don’t assume using just a tiny bit is okay. The old “under 10 seconds” or “change the pitch” tricks often fail and are not legitimate legally either. Content ID is quite sophisticated now.
• If you must use something copyrighted: Maybe you’re doing commentary (like reviewing a song). Then to avoid strikes, keep it as short as possible and talk over it if you can (transform the use). Even then you might get claims, but you could dispute under fair use if applicable. That’s a whole process and not guaranteed. So unless it’s really necessary for commentary or parody, it’s easier to avoid.
• Check with YouTube’s Copyright Policies: They explain common scenarios. For example, using background music from a radio in a vlog is still not allowed. They also note that even if you record a cover of a song yourself, you could get a claim (though not a strike, because covers are usually allowed to stay with monetization to the original songwriter).
• Pre-check songs: YouTube has a feature in the upload process (checks) that will tell you if a video is likely to get a claim (by scanning it against Content ID). They also have a “Library (Creator Music)” search where you can see if a particular popular song is available for licensing or what the result of using it would be (like “will result in a video being viewable & monetized by copyright owner” or “blocked worldwide”). You could test your video as unlisted and see if any claims pop up too.
• Be cautious with background sources: Sometimes you might accidentally include music (like a TV playing in the background of your recorded footage). Content ID can catch that too. If it happens, you can use YouTube’s editing tools to mute or replace that segment after upload to remove the claim.

Following these steps, many creators manage to have zero strikes. It’s about being proactive in selecting music. If you do all this and still get an unjustified claim (like for a track you have rights to), you can dispute it with evidence.

Remember, three strikes in 90 days and your channel can be terminated. So it’s crucial to avoid them. Claims are not strikes, but multiple unresolved claims could be troublesome and they can choose to escalate to strikes if they think you’re a repeat offender. So best not to accumulate even claims if possible.

What is the difference between a copyright claim and a copyright strike on YouTube?

On YouTube, a copyright claim is a notice (often via Content ID) that someone else’s copyrighted content is in your video – it usually doesn’t penalize your channel but might monetize or restrict the video. A copyright strike is a formal takedown notice under the DMCA, which does penalize your channel (you get a “strike”), and can lead to channel removal if you accumulate three strikes.
To clarify:

• Copyright Claim:
• Triggered usually by YouTube’s automated Content ID system when it detects copyrighted music/video in your upload. It can also be a manual claim by a rights holder using YouTube’s tools.
• Effects of a claim: The video remains up (in most cases), but the claimant (the content owner) can choose to monetize it by running ads and collecting revenue, or they might choose to just track it (see analytics), or block it in certain countries or worldwide. Many music claims lead to monetization for the music owner rather than blocking. You, the uploader, do not get a channel penalty for claims; it’s more like “this video isn’t fully yours because it has X.”
• You can dispute a claim if you believe you have rights (e.g., fair use or you licensed the content). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, the claim is released. If the claimant disagrees, they can uphold it or escalate it.
• Claims are common and many channels live with claims on some videos, especially if they use music or clips (like gaming channels with in-game music, etc.). Claims do not harm your standing; they just might prevent you from monetizing those claimed videos.
• Copyright Strike: This happens when a copyright owner issues a formal DMCA takedown request for your content (often because they found a serious infringement and want the video removed). This is more severe. YouTube removes your video entirely (or mutes it severely) and you get a notice that you’ve received a strike.
• Consequences of a strike: It’s a mark on your channel. With one strike, you lose some privileges (like you can’t live stream for a week, etc., as per YouTube’s policy updates). Two strikes, more restrictions. Three active strikes within 90 days and your channel is terminated – all videos removed, you possibly can’t create another channel. Strikes expire after 90 days if you complete YouTube’s copyright school and don’t get more.
• You can counter-notice a strike if you believe it’s a mistake or fair use. Counter-noticing basically says “I assert this is not infringing, please restore my video.” That’s a legal statement which can escalate to actual legal action if the claimant disagrees (they have to file a lawsuit within 10 business days to keep it down after a counter). Counter-notices are serious; you should be confident in your fair use or rights in that scenario.
• Strikes generally come from more aggressive action by rights holders (e.g., a movie studio seeing a big chunk of their film uploaded, or a record label seeing a full song used in a way they don’t like). They bypass Content ID monetization and just say “take it down now.”
• Summary: Claim = video still up, content owner alerted/compensated; no channel harm (aside from you not earning on that video). It’s like a yellow flag for that video only.
• Strike = video down, channel gets a red flag; accumulate three and you’re out. It’s a serious warning.
• Analogy: A claim is like a speeding camera ticket (small fine, no major record). A strike is like getting pulled over by police (goes on your driving record, bigger consequences if repeated).
• Good to know: Not all copyright owners use Content ID; some skip straight to strikes for any use. But major music labels typically use Content ID first (they want revenue).
• Multiple claims: You can have multiple claims on a single video if you used lots of songs – then any ad revenue might be split or they might all block it. Still not strikes.
• Avoiding strikes: Most folks say if you get a claim, just leave it or remove the content if you don’t want the claim – don’t ignore it, but it’s not urgent. If you get a strike, take it extremely seriously. Review what caused it and avoid that in the future.

Understanding this difference is important because some creators panic at claims thinking their channel is at risk (it’s usually not from a claim), or conversely they ignore a strike thinking it’s like a claim and then get in bigger trouble.

What should I do if I get a copyright claim or strike but I have a license?

If you receive a claim or strike on content that you have licensed music for, you should dispute the claim through the platform’s process and provide proof of your license. In the case of a strike (takedown), you may need to file a counter-notification with evidence of your license to get the video reinstated.
Steps to take:

• For a Content ID claim: On YouTube, go to the Video in YouTube Studio, look at the claim details. There’s an option to dispute the claim. Select that you have a license. You’ll likely need to write an explanation and possibly attach documentation. You should have a license certificate or agreement – provide that info (e.g., “I have licensed this song through [Licensing Agency] – license ID #, see attached”). The claimant (the music owner or their representative) will review the dispute. If they agree, they’ll release the claim, and you can monetize your video again or the restrictions lift. If they reject, you might escalate or contact them directly if possible. But usually if you truly have a valid license and you communicate that clearly, they will release it. Keep in mind sometimes the people reviewing claims might not immediately find your license in their system, especially if it’s a broad catalog. Patience and clear evidence help.
• For a strike/takedown: A strike means they issued a formal removal. You can use YouTube’s counter-notification system to contest it. In that, you’d basically assert “I have the rights to this content.” You should only do this if you indeed have a license and can prove it, because a counter-notice is a legal assertion that could lead to legal processes. In the counter-notice form or afterward, you should provide details of your license (perhaps YouTube doesn’t give a way to attach in the initial form, but they may follow up or the claimant will see your reasoning). Another approach before countering: try reaching out to the claimant (if contact info is available) and inform them you have a license – maybe it was an error. Sometimes strikes happen due to miscommunication or an automated system not knowing about your license.
• Contact the licensor: If you licensed via a service or directly from an artist/label, reach out to your contact there. For example, if you got a license from a library and still got claimed, tell the library. They often have a department to handle Content ID conflicts. They might then talk to YouTube or the claimant to resolve it. Many libraries pre-register YouTube channels to avoid claims.
• Keep records: Provide evidence like the license agreement, the scope of rights (show it covers YouTube, etc.), and any reference numbers. If your license came with a “clearance certificate” or something, include that.
• Time frame: On YouTube, once you dispute a claim, the claimant has 30 days to respond. During that time, the video’s claim is in limbo – if they don’t respond, the claim is released automatically after 30 days. With a strike (counter-notice), if you file it, the claimant has 10 business days to show proof they filed a lawsuit to prevent restoration. Usually if you truly have a license, they won’t sue (and likely wouldn’t have struck in first place if they knew). Often, they just let it go or YouTube reinstates after that period.
• Be professional: Explain without anger. Something like: “This video uses the song [Song] by [Artist]. I have obtained a synchronization license from [Publisher/Agency] which grants me the right to use this music in my YouTube video. Attached is the license document (or available upon request). Therefore, this use is authorized and not an infringement.” That should suffice.
• Platform differences: On other platforms like Facebook, similar approach – dispute via their forms, provide proof.
• In the future: To preempt this, sometimes when you get a license you can ask the licensor if they can whitelist your video or channel with YouTube’s Content ID system. Some production libraries and music services do this automatically when you provide your channel info. That prevents claims from occurring in the first place.

In short: Don’t panic – a claim/strike when you have a license is often a mistake or an automated mismatch. Use the provided channels to assert your rights calmly and with evidence. This is essentially an administrative thing; you just need to get the information to the right party.

And as always, ensure your license actually covers the use on YouTube; most sync licenses would, but double-check any limitations in the contract (it might say “not for standalone music use” or something – posting just the song audio would not be okay, but in your video context it is). Assuming all is proper, you’re on solid ground to dispute.

What is fair use and can it apply to using music?

Fair use is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for certain purposes like criticism, commentary, news, teaching, or parody – but it’s narrowly applied to music. Using music under fair use is tricky; usually only very short excerpts for purposes of critique or parody of the music itself are likely to be considered fair use.
To elaborate:

• Fair use factors: In U.S. law (and similarly “fair dealing” elsewhere), four factors are considered ():
• Purpose and character of the use (e.g., noncommercial, educational, or transformative use like commentary or parody weighs toward fair use; just entertainment or commercial use weighs against).
• Nature of the copyrighted work (music is creative so it gets stronger protection; factual works have weaker protection).
• Amount and substantiality of the portion used (using smaller, less significant portions favors fair use (); taking the “heart” of the work or a large portion goes against fair use).
• Effect on the potential market for the original (if your use could substitute for or devalue the original or its market, that’s against fair use ()).
• Music is hard: If you use a song as background music for a video, that’s typically not fair use – it’s not transformative (you’re not adding new meaning or message to the song; you’re just enjoying it in your video). It’s also often the whole song or a big chunk, which is a lot, and it could affect the market (people might just listen to your video for the music instead of buying the song). So background music usage is almost never fair use.
• Transformative uses (): Fair use for music usually involves uses where you change the purpose of the music. Examples:
• Commentary/critique: A YouTube video reviewing a new song or analyzing its composition can use short clips of the song to illustrate points. That can be fair use because you’re using it to comment on the music (factor 1: criticism, factor 3: ideally short clips, factor 4: your review likely doesn’t replace the experience of listening to the full song, and might even encourage it).
• Parody: If you create a parody of a song (like Weird Al Yankovic style, though he actually licenses his – legally he might not need to because parody can be fair use, but he chooses to license). Parody directly targets the original work for humor/commentary, so it’s considered transformative and often fair use. But note, using the music without changing lyrics might be considered more like a cover (not a parody of the original message).
• Teaching: In an educational context, a teacher might use a snippet of a song to teach about music theory – that could be fair use under teaching or the classroom exemption specifically.
• Incidental capture: If music is incidentally caught in the background of your video (like walking through a store where a radio is on), some might argue fair use (de minimis use) because it’s not deliberately included. Courts have had different takes on such incidental uses (often looked at as de minimis copying).
• Fair use is case-by-case: There’s no fixed length like “5 seconds is fair use” – that’s a myth (). It depends on context. 5 seconds might be fine in a review to illustrate a point; 5 seconds looped as your intro every video might not be fine because it’s used for entertainment and branding rather than critique.
• Risk: If you claim fair use and get into a legal dispute, it can be expensive to defend, even if you’re right. Platforms like YouTube also might not accept your fair use argument in the Content ID dispute process – they usually leave it to the copyright owner or you to escalate legally if needed. So practically, fair use might protect you in court, but you could still have your video taken down if the copyright owner disputes your fair use claim and you choose not to fight it legally.

Examples of fair use in music:

• A video essay analyzing the lyrics of a song, playing 15-second clips of verses to discuss each – likely fair use (commentary).
• A critical review of an album that briefly plays samples of tracks to discuss them – likely fair use.
• A comedy video that uses a well-known song in a way that pokes fun at the song itself – possibly parody, fair use.
• A DJ remix or mashup – this is often NOT considered fair use; it’s creative but still derivative and can compete with originals (not commentary, and uses large portions).
• International: Outside the U.S., some countries have stricter or more limited “fair dealing.” For example, in the UK, fair dealing for criticism or review allows use of a work if “accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment” and it’s actually for critique. But using music in personal vids wouldn’t be fair dealing there either.

Conclusion: Fair use does apply to music but in narrow, purposeful ways. If your use of music is to comment on it or parody it, you have a case for fair use. If you’re just using it as an element of your own creation (background, mood, enjoyment), that’s generally not fair use and you’d need a license. Always consider the four factors – especially whether your use is transformative (adds new meaning or message) (). That’s often the strongest pillar in fair use analysis nowadays (courts heavily weigh if the use is transformative). Playing a song in full in a video is not transformative; criticizing that song is. So, fair use is not a free pass for general music use.

Does giving credit allow me to use music without a license?

No. Giving credit (attribution) to the artist or copyright owner does not replace the need for a license. Simply crediting the source does not give you legal permission to use the music.
This is a very common misconception:

• Why people think this: Probably because in academia and other contexts, citing sources is the right thing to do. Or they confuse it with Creative Commons licenses that require attribution – but those are specifically licensed already. For normal copyrighted music, credit or “no copyright intended” disclaimers have no legal effect.
• What copyright law requires: The default is you cannot use the work without permission, period. It doesn’t say “but if you credit the author, it’s fine.” That’s not a clause in the law. So from a law perspective, unauthorized use with credit is still unauthorized use (infringement).
• Attribution is good practice but not a license (): It’s polite and ethical to credit creators, and some licenses (like CC BY) demand it, but it’s not a get-out-of-jail card. Think of it this way: if someone took your photo and posted it in an ad without asking, but they put your name on it, that might make you feel slightly better that you got credit, but you’d likely still be upset they didn’t ask or pay. The law backs that – credit doesn’t waive your right to control the use.
• Content ID/claims: In practice on YouTube, writing “All rights go to the artist” or “I do not own this music” in the description does nothing to prevent a claim or strike. The automated systems don’t care about descriptions, and even a manual reviewer won’t say “oh they gave credit, okay no problem.” Actually, by giving credit, you’re sort of admitting you used someone else’s content, which confirms the claim is valid.
• Confusion with CC or free use: Some people see “no copyright music” or “free to use with credit” – those are specific cases where the creator has given conditional permission (like “you can use my song if you credit me”). That is a license – a Creative Commons or simply a free license. In those cases, yes, credit is part of the license terms. But for any normal copyrighted song (like a Top 40 hit), unless you see explicit permission that credit is enough, assume it’s not.
• Moral rights: In some countries, authors have moral rights including the right to be attributed. But that’s separate from economic rights. Even if you credit them (fulfilling a moral right in some jurisdictions), you still violated the economic right (reproduction/performance without permission).
• Examples: People often put disclaimers like “I don’t own the music. All copyrights belong to their respective owners. No infringement intended.” This doesn’t hold up legally (). It might be a good faith gesture, but it’s not a defense. In fact, matchtune’s myth #2 explicitly debunks “If you credit the artist, you can use their music” () – that’s false; you still need proper licensing.

Bottom line: Always separate attribution from authorization. Attribution is acknowledging the creator, authorization is having the right to use the work. You need authorization (a license) to use; attribution is just nice to do (and required in some licensing schemes, but not sufficient on its own under copyright law) ().

So, do credit creators when using content under license or fair use, but remember crediting alone doesn’t legalize an unlicensed use.