It is no longer free as soon as the brand puts money behind the video. The place of publication is the only thing deciding what sound the video can have.
The place of publication decides the sound
Organic, on your account
The sound library built into a platform is intended for use on that platform, from your own account, with no media buying behind it. That is the only case where the question barely arises.
Organic, on the brand's account
The content changes hands. The track used may no longer be covered, and the post becomes a company's, which changes the nature of the use. The applicable rule depends on the platform and the catalogue concerned, and is checked before delivery.
Behind media buying
That is the case causing the most problems. As soon as an advertising budget pushes the video, the use becomes commercial in the strict sense, and a track from a library intended for organic use is generally no longer usable. The brand needs music whose licence explicitly covers paid advertising, or no music at all.
One practical consequence: ask at briefing time where the video will be published. That question, asked before the shoot, avoids a complete re-edit afterwards.
Deliver so that nobody has to ask
Five elements to supply with every order.
The edited version, with the music.
The version with no music, dealt with above.
The isolated voice track, when the edit allows it.
A note stating the exact source of the music used.
And the list of added sounds, including sound effects, which follow the same rules as music.
One note: those five elements take ten minutes at export and are invoiced as a normal delivery. They save the brand a legal check and save you from being called six months later to redo a video published in the meantime.
What separates three sources of music
| Source | What it allows | The risk |
|---|---|---|
| The platform's library | Use on that platform only | Unusable in advertising |
| A licensed library | Use defined by the licence bought | Read the exact scope |
| A commercial track | Nothing without written consent | Video taken down, or a claim |
What happens to a badly scored video
It is demonetised, muted, blocked in some countries, or removed. And the brand that paid for it can no longer run it, which is the real cost.
What is delivered with the video
The track name, the licence and its scope. Without those three, the brand cannot know whether it may broadcast, to be confirmed with a lawyer at the slightest doubt.
The one that really causes trouble
Four frequent cases, from most to least risky.
The trending sound of the moment, almost always a commercial extract: the most dangerous case, because it seems harmless and is visible to everybody.
Music found on a free site, whose exact licence is rarely read and sometimes limited to non-commercial use.
Music composed by an acquaintance, with nothing in writing: it belongs to its author, and verbal permission is not enough.
And your own music, the only comfortable situation, provided you state it in writing and specify what the brand may do with it.
One general precaution: the applicable rules depend on the platform, the catalogue, the country of publication and the type of use. They change, and a published video stays online for a long time. The check is done with a lawyer before publication, never after a claim.
One last marker: in this area the question is not whether music is free, it is what use it is free for. The same track can be perfectly allowed on your account and completely prohibited in an advertisement, and it is the brand that pays the difference, often by taking down the video you delivered.
Sources
Checked on 4 September 2026. Thresholds and rates change: where this guide and the official source disagree, the official source is right.
