With music in a brand video, Germany is not about one collecting society but two. That is the verdict, and it explains why a clearance somebody obtained often covers only half: GEMA administers rights in the composition, GVL rights attached to the specific recording.
Who administers what
A song is two things at once, and the two are handled by different bodies for different rightholders.
| The work | The recording | |
|---|---|---|
| What it covers | Composition and lyrics | The specific performance you hear |
| Who holds it | Authors, composers, publishers | Performers and the phonogram producer |
| Who administers it collectively in Germany | GEMA | GVL |
| What follows | A clearance for the work says nothing about the recording | And the other way round |
The last row is the one that costs campaigns. Somebody commissioning a cover version has bypassed the original's recording rights and not obtained the rights in the work.
Why this shows up more clearly in Germany
Because collective administration is strongly established here, and because GEMA administers not only the works of its own members but, through reciprocal agreements, a very large international repertoire as well. Anyone assuming a particular title falls outside is making an assumption they cannot verify.
What a platform licence covers, and where it ends
The agreements between platforms and rightholders make a catalogue usable inside the respective application. They are not an acquisition of rights by the brand.
Three limits follow, and all three are regularly crossed.
The surface. What is cleared on one platform is not cleared off it. The same file on the brand's own website, in a newsletter or on a trade show screen sits outside.
The purpose. Commercial use is a different thing from a private post, and the platforms' general music libraries are meant for the latter.
The edit. An excerpt re-cut and placed into an advertisement is a different use from the original video.
The case most often overlooked
The organically published video that is later pushed as a paid advertisement. Nothing changes in the file, everything changes in the use, and that is exactly where most complaints land.
Why you do not check the repertoire by ear
GEMA states that it administers the works of over one hundred thousand members, plus those of millions of further creators through international agreements. That is not a list anybody carries in their head.
In practice: you do not establish whether a title is free of collecting-society rights by listening to it or searching for it. You obtain evidence of the licence the title sits under, and you file it.
What counts as evidence. A licence certificate or invoice from the library showing scope, territory and term. A screenshot of a product page does not serve, because terms change.
What the brand requires from the creator
The source of the audio, named. Not "from the app", but which library, which title, which licence.
Commercial library or a supplied track. Two routes, no third. Where the brand supplies the music, the question disappears.
No title from the general library for material the brand is to reuse.
The raw file without music. It costs nothing and saves the production if the audio later has to be replaced.
Why the last line matters most
Because it caps the damage. A complaint about an audio track is, with the silent raw file, an hour's work. Without it, it is a new shoot.
What actually happens when a complaint lands
The sequence is almost always the same, and it starts more harmlessly than it ends.
The audio disappears. The platform mutes the video. It stays online, and an edit cut to the beat becomes unusable.
Reach breaks regionally. Some blocks apply only in certain countries, which leaves the campaign running elsewhere and distorts every measurement.
The video disappears. Usually just as it starts to perform, which is when it is worth most.
Somebody gets in touch. That is the stage beyond the platform, and in Germany it can come from two directions: from the rightholders' side, and, where the use is also open to challenge under competition law, from a competitor.
What makes the bill genuinely expensive
Not the licence you could have bought. Media budget already spent on a removed video does not come back, and a campaign built around a single asset is left without a creative overnight.
A licence costs a manageable amount up front. A complaint, by contrast, costs the production, the budget and the time during which nobody can run anything.
The objection you hear
"Everybody does it this way." That may be true and changes nothing, because what is examined is your own publication and not the market average. On the contrary: a widespread practice is more likely to be noticed, because it involves more parties and is easier to find.
The case nobody thinks of: music in the background
You shoot in a café, a shop, a gym, and music is playing there. It was not planned, it appears in no brief, and it is on the audio track all the same.
Legally, the lack of intention changes little: what is audible in the published video is part of what is distributed. In practice this is the most common reason a shot later gets muted without anybody having made a decision about it.
What to do about it. Before the first take, record ten seconds of the room alone and listen back. If music is playing, either ask about the system or move somewhere else. And run the voice recording, where possible, with a lapel microphone that picks up less of the room.
The route that avoids the question entirely
For a brand producing regularly, the cheapest solution is rarely the individual licence.
Original sound. The person's voice, room tone, the product itself. No rights problem, and in a product description often more effective than any underscore.
One supplied track for every commission. The brand licenses a handful of titles once, with the scope it actually needs, and sends them with every brief. After that the question does not arise on any individual shoot.
That second option costs effort once and then removes an entire category of complaint from the operation.
Sources
Checked on 8 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the source prevails.
