Music on TikTok: why a EUR 95,750 claim failed

A 14-second video and a EUR 95,750 claim

A company advertised its weight-loss and nutrition app on TikTok. It used Gala’s song “Freed from Desire” in a 14-second video. The post was available at least from 28 May 2024 until June 2025. The claimant rights agency demanded EUR 250 per day of use, totalling EUR 95,750 for 383 days. These figures describe the claim, not a rate approved by the court (judgment, pp. 2 and 3).

Frankfurt Regional Court dismissed the claim in full on 9 September 2026. Under the operative part of the judgment, the claimant must bear the litigation costs. The decisive issue was the insufficient basis for licence damages, although the court found infringement and at least negligent conduct (pp. 1 and 6 to 10).

Why TikTok’s library did not provide sufficient permission

The song was part of the general music library, not the “Commercial Sounds”. The TikTok terms applicable to the case did not permit commercial use without separate rights. The company could therefore not assume that a technically selectable track was cleared for its advertising (pp. 2 and 6).

The court emphasises the duty to check usage rights carefully. Our practical recommendation for businesses, agencies and creators is to establish the precise scope of the licence before publishing and retain evidence. A platform’s track selection feature does not replace that check.

How damages based on a hypothetical licence are assessed

Section 97(2) of the German Copyright Act permits damages to be calculated by reference to the reasonable fee for the required permission. The objective value of the specific use is decisive: what would reasonable contracting parties have agreed, taking the actual course of events into account? The infringer’s personal willingness to pay is not decisive (judgment, p. 7).

An estimate under section 287 of the German Code of Civil Procedure requires tangible evidence. Actual licence agreements, suitable industry rates and the economic circumstances of the individual case may be relevant. A lack of comparable licences does not therefore automatically defeat a claim. Equally, it does not permit arbitrary pricing (pp. 7 to 9).

Why the EUR 250 daily calculation failed

The claimant produced neither a licence agreement nor suitable comparable rates from other rights holders. It also failed to provide information about its licensor’s licensing practice at the time of infringement. In this particular case, the court therefore had neither an established licensing practice nor suitable industry rates on which to rely (pp. 8 and 9).

The extrapolation presented a further problem: the claimant considered EUR 250 per day realistic for an assumed three-day advertising use, then applied that same rate throughout the much longer period. The court reasoned that reasonable parties would have agreed a substantial discount or a flat fee for such a duration. The privately commissioned expert opinion also favoured flat amounts (pp. 9 and 10).

The judgment does not itself establish an appropriate alternative amount. The court lacked a reliable basis even for identifying the approximate level of the fee. The payment claim therefore failed in full (pp. 9 and 10).

Availability and advertising impact require separate assessment

The court also considered the argument that, following stronger initial distribution, TikTok videos may be shown less frequently and later accessed mainly through the profile. In its view, this was a further reason against applying an unchanged daily or monthly rate throughout the period of availability (p. 11).

This does not establish a fixed rule that a video becomes worthless after 72 hours or that its continued use is free. Such timing assertions formed part of the parties’ submissions. Our assessment is that the actual use and its economic significance require a reasoned valuation; the number of calendar days alone does not answer that question.

What to check when facing a music copyright demand

The decision concerns a specific payment claim under German law. It removes neither the need to clear rights nor potential injunction claims under section 97(1) of the German Copyright Act. Other cases may have different outcomes where reliable evidence is available. The official publication records that the judgment is open to appeal (p. 1).

As practical preparation, we recommend obtaining separate assessments of the alleged infringement and the amount claimed. Comparable agreements and a reasoned valuation are particularly important for rights holders. Businesses facing a claim should gather the following:

• The complete demand letter, attachments and stated deadlines.
• The video concerned, publication dates and available reach data.
• Evidence of licences and the platform terms applicable to the use.
• Previous offers, payments and correspondence about the fee demanded.

Assess the claim alongside litigation costs

A substantial claim warrants careful examination of its factual and legal basis. Whether litigation is worthwhile also depends on the evidence, litigation costs and potential additional claims. The Frankfurt judgment provides points to examine, but no assurance that another claim will likewise fail in full.