No damages for
unlicensed music on
TikTok.
No damages for
unlicensed music on
TikTok.
of
A rights agency demanded 95,750 euros for a 14-second promotional video. The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main confirmed the copyright infringement but did not award a single cent. How can damages for TikTok music be calculated when there is no established market for such uses?
A Eurodance hit in a video for a weight-loss app
A company is promoting its weight-loss and nutrition app on TikTok. For a 14-second video, it selected the track “Freed from Desire” by Gala from the platform’s music library. The video was available from May 28, 2024, through June 2025. The song was not one of the so-called commercial sounds. According to TikTok’s Terms of Service, the other sounds may only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes.
A rights agency founded in 2024 took action against this. It grants synchronization rights—that is, the right to combine music with videos. It acquired the rights to this recording in November 2024, along with authorization to claim damages for prior infringements. In a letter dated June 16, 2025, it demanded 95,750 euros. On its website, it had at one point listed a rate of 300 euros per month for the same case, totaling 4,200 euros. It removed this offer on July 9, 2025, citing it as a mistake made by an intern.
How much is a music license worth on TikTok?
The rights agency charged 250 euros per day for 383 days of use. The determining factors were the song’s popularity, the platform’s reach, the duration of use, and the song title’s connection to a weight-loss app. The company also used the song as a “signature sound”—that is, as a musical calling card.
The company countered that TikTok videos achieve nearly all of their reach in the first few hours and days. A reasonable licensee would therefore agree to a one-time lump-sum payment. The 4,200 euros quoted on the website represented the upper limit. It offered this amount on August 14, 2025, to settle the matter.
Frankfurt Regional Court Dismisses the Lawsuit in Its Entirety
The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main dismissed the lawsuit in its judgment dated September 9, 2026—Case No. 2-06 O 424/25 . The court did find that there had been an infringement of the copyright and that the defendant company was at fault. However, it held that the company should not have relied on TikTok’s music library because its terms and conditions expressly excluded commercial use. The court also rejected the claim for a contract worth 4,200 euros. It found that the offer on the website had been superseded by the written demand and that acceptance had occurred after the set deadline had expired.
Why Did the Damages Claim for TikTok Music Fail?
However, the lawsuit failed due to the amount of damages claimed. The rights agency had chosen the so-called “license analogy” for its calculation. This approach asks what compensation reasonable contracting parties would have agreed upon for the actual use. The court may estimate this amount, but it needs concrete evidence to do so. Otherwise, in the chamber’s view, the estimate would be “up in the air.”
The rights holder’s own licensing practices take precedence; industry-standard rates would be considered only thereafter. The rights agency did not submit a single licensing agreement. It argued that there is no standard practice for remuneration in the social media sector and rejected the rules of thumb established by the German Music Publishers Association as a benchmark. The Chamber drew a clear conclusion from this:
However, the fact that there is neither a licensing practice nor applicable licensing rates does not mean that the plaintiff can set a value at will by referring to “individual price negotiations.”
The court left open the question of whether the value was in the high three-digit range, in the four-digit range, or just under 100,000 euros. An estimate was therefore ruled out.
Why can’t a daily rate be extrapolated?
The rights agency had argued that a marketing manager had agreed to a rate of 250 euros per day for three days of use. In the court’s view, however, the actual period of 14 months was the determining factor. A daily rate for three days cannot be extrapolated linearly; with such a long period of use, a substantial discount would be expected. Even the rights agency’s own expert opinion ruled out daily and monthly rates. Since TikTok primarily plays videos shortly after they are published, there is strong evidence in favor of a flat fee.
After reviewing the video, the chamber ruled out the existence of a “signature sound.” For that to be the case, the song would have had to be featured prominently and in numerous videos.
What does this mean for companies?
The court follows the hierarchy developed by the Federal Court of Justice regarding the license analogy. With regard to social media, it draws a clear conclusion from this: Anyone who argues that there is no market cannot rely on a freely chosen daily rate. The court thus clearly rejects absurd claims for damages that lack any factual basis.
Nevertheless, the risk of legal violations remains for companies. Liability on the merits of the case has been established, and a rights holder with solid licensing agreements could likely enforce their claim accordingly. Anyone who uses music from TikTok’s general library in corporate videos must continue to expect a cease and desist letter, as we described in our article on cease and desist letters regarding music on Instagram and TikTok. If a claim is received, the first step in defending against copyright cease and desist letters is to review the calculation of the claim.
Conclusion
The ruling rejects excessive flat-rate claims for the use of music in social media videos. Rights holders must explain how the value of the actual use was determined and provide supporting evidence.
Ultimately, the ruling is to be welcomed, as companies are all too often confronted with completely excessive claims from rights holders for the use of music on social media. While rights holders should be compensated for their losses, such compensation must remain within reasonable economic limits.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
Copyright!
