Paying for a video does not automatically buy the right to do anything you like with it. In Mexico as everywhere, the licence is a separate thing from the file, and brands that assume otherwise create a problem that surfaces exactly when the campaign starts working.

What you are actually buying

Two things: the file, and permission to use it in specific ways for a specific time. If the agreement only mentions the file, the permission is whatever the parties can later claim they meant, which is not a position anybody wants to be in.

Organic and paid are not the same permission

Posting on the brand's own channels and running the video as a paid advertisement are different uses with different values. A creator who agreed to the first has not agreed to the second, and discovering that after the ad is live is expensive.

The creator's image is their own

The person's face and voice are personal rights, not just a component of a file. Using footage of somebody in a campaign they did not agree to is a distinct problem from copyright, and it does not disappear because you paid for the video.

Put the term and the territory in writing

Six months, Mexico, paid social and the brand's own channels. That sentence costs nothing to write and it removes the entire category of dispute. Open ended perpetual worldwide rights can be bought, but they should be priced as what they are.

Renewal is normal and cheap

When a video keeps performing, extending the licence is a small payment and a short message. Brands that plan for renewal keep their best assets running; brands that do not end up pulling a video that was still making money.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

Does paying buy unlimited use?

No, the licence is separate from the file.

Is a paid ad covered by default?

No, it is a distinct permission.

What about the creator's face?

That is a personal right, separate from copyright.

What should be written down?

Term, territory and permitted placements.