Your brand received a music copyright infringement notice. Now what?
Written for in-house legal and brand teams — not creators. What the letter actually is, why it is rarely about one post, and what to assemble before you respond
This page is information, not legal advice. Your counsel leads; we build the factual record they act on.
The First Three Moves
Understand What It Is
A rights-holder demand letter is the opening of a negotiation, not a verdict. It will cite specific posts, name the recordings, and reference statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work. The tone is designed to compress your decision time. Do not let it — but do not ignore it either, because continuing to post after a cease-and-desist compounds exposure rather than preserving your position.
Assume It Is A Sample
This is the point most brands miss. Enforcement teams cite the clearest examples; the full complaint, when it comes, is bigger. Negotiating on the letter's numbers without knowing your own means negotiating blind — and the letter's numbers were chosen by the other side.
Audit Before You Reply
Your counsel's first question will be "what is our total exposure?" An independent audit answers it: every violation across every channel and campaign, risk-tiered, with the evidence chain intact. It turns the negotiation from their number into one you have verified, and it demonstrates good-faith remediation.
What Your Legal Team Will Ask For
Well, we've got answers
What should we assemble before briefing counsel?
Five things. License records for any music you did clear. Influencer contracts and briefs — who chose the audio matters, even though it is the brand that receives the letter. Your content approval workflow. Your insurance policies, because some media liability cover responds. And the full findings register from an audit, so the total is a number rather than an estimate.
We are under a response deadline. How fast can you move?
First findings within hours and the full estate within days, depending on its size. Tell us the deadline when you make contact — the sequencing of an audit under a live deadline is different from a routine one, and we would rather plan around the date than discover it later.
Should we take the cited posts down straight away?
That is a decision for your counsel, not for us, and it is genuinely fact-specific. What we can say is that removal reduces ongoing exposure but does not extinguish liability for the period the content was published — and that capturing the evidence before anything is removed preserves the record your lawyers will need either way.
The posts were published by influencers, not by us. Are we still on the hook?
Rights holders have pursued brands over content posted by paid creators. Where a brand commissioned, briefed or funded a post, it is generally treated as brand marketing regardless of whose account it sits on. Your contracts may allocate the cost afterwards; they do not usually change who receives the letter.
Do you give legal advice?
No, and we are careful about the line. We are not a law firm. We produce the factual record — every item with its URL, capture, the track identified, and the date — that your counsel then acts on. Where a license position is genuinely ambiguous, we mark it for review rather than assert it.
Under active pressure? Talk to us today.
We are on Your Side
