The Brand Paid for a Reel. Can It Do Whatever It Wants With It? Copyright in Influencer Content

Legal status as of 15 September 2026. Translated by the Blogger Bank editorial team from the Polish original.

"We paid for the content, so the content is ours" – that is not how it works

In influencer marketing it is easy to confuse two things: paying for a service and acquiring rights to the resulting material. A brand can pay an influencer to record and publish a Reel, but the payment alone does not mean it may copy the video, re-edit it, run it in ads, put it on its website and use it indefinitely.

If a video, photo, graphic or text has a creative and individual character, it may be a work protected by copyright. As a rule, the rights belong to the creator until they grant a licence or effectively transfer them. So the contract has to answer not only the question "how much does a Reel cost?", but also "what does the brand buy for that price?".

First, let's establish who the creator of the material is

With a simple Reel shot and edited by the influencer, the situation can be fairly clear. With a bigger production, however, more people appear: a photographer, a camera operator, an editor, a graphic designer, a voice-over artist, a composer. It may also turn out that the influencer uses music, a font, stock footage or a template to which they only hold a specific licence.

That is why a brand should be careful with the promise "I hand over all rights to everything" if the creator does not hold all the rights they are trying to hand over. The influencer, in turn, should know that they are responsible not only for their own recording, but also for the elements they include in it.

Image is a separate topic. Even if the brand acquires copyright to the video, using the creator's likeness in further channels and campaigns should have a clear basis. In the contract it is therefore worth separating the rights to the material itself from consent to the commercial use of the creator's image, voice or pseudonym.

A licence or a transfer of rights?

A transfer of economic copyright means that, to the agreed extent, the rights pass to the acquirer. A licence leaves the rights with the creator but gives the brand the right to use the material on specified terms.

For many campaigns a licence is entirely sufficient. The brand can get, for example, the right to publish the video on its own channels for 12 months and to use it in advertising on Instagram and Facebook for 3 months. It does not have to take over all rights forever if there is no need for that.

This also matters for the price. The broader the scope of use, the longer the period and the more channels, the greater the economic value of the rights. The rate for a Reel published once on the influencer's profile should not automatically be treated as the rate for a multi-year paid media campaign.

Fields of exploitation – why one sentence "in all fields" may not be enough

The Polish Copyright Act requires the fields of exploitation covered by the contract to be listed explicitly. In practice it is worth using language that the marketing team also understands, not just the statutory formula.

If the brand wants to use the material on Instagram and TikTok, on its website, in a newsletter and in paid advertising, the contract should reflect that. It is also worth agreeing whether ads may be run from the brand's account or also from the creator's account in the whitelisting/partnership ads model.

Time and territory also have to be remembered. A campaign in Poland for three months is a completely different scope from global use for five years. There is no reason to price these two models the same way.

A repost is not the same as paid media

This is one of the most common traps. The influencer agrees that the brand may share their post. A few weeks later they discover the same Reel as an ad shown to hundreds of thousands of people. The brand replies: "but we had consent to use the material".

Organic publication on the brand's profile and paid promotion of the material are two different ways of exploitation from a business point of view, and often also under the terms of the agreed licence. If the campaign is to include paid media, it is best to say so directly: on which platforms, from which account, for what period and with what budget or reach, if the parties want to apply such a limit.

Use of the material outside social media should be treated the same way – e.g. in e-commerce, display advertising, materials for distributors or on screens in shops.

Can the brand shorten it, re-edit it or add its own caption?

Acquiring economic rights does not automatically mean full freedom to interfere with the work. The creator retains moral rights, and the Act limits the possibility of making changes without their consent. That is why it is worth agreeing the scope of permitted modifications in the contract upfront.

From the brand's point of view, practical consents cover technical cuts, format changes, adding subtitles, a CTA, a logo or preparing several language versions. From the creator's point of view, it is important to make sure the edit does not change the meaning of what they said and does not put them in a context they have not accepted.

The more the material relies on the creator's personal recommendation, the more carefully a broad consent to any modification should be approached.

Transferring rights by DM? This is where the problem of form arises

A contract transferring economic copyright requires written form, otherwise it is null and void. The electronic equivalent of written form is a document bearing a qualified electronic signature. An ordinary Instagram message, an e-mail with a typed name or clicking a simple "I accept" button will not always meet this requirement.

This does not mean that arrangements made in a messenger are meaningless. They can confirm the existence of an agreement, the scope of the commission or the grant of a non-exclusive licence. However, one should not assume that every sentence "I transfer the rights" written in an e-mail actually transfers economic rights.

What should a good content rights clause contain?

Instead of copying a dozen fields of exploitation from a random template, it is worth answering a few business questions: where the material will be used, for how long, whether it will be promoted with paid ads, whether it can be edited, whether the rights may be passed on, and whether the material contains image, music or other third-party elements.

A good clause should be understandable to the person running the campaign. If, after reading the contract, the social media manager still does not know whether they can click "promote post", the provision does not fulfil its basic function.

In bigger campaigns, this is exactly the part of the contract worth checking particularly carefully. A mistake in the publication date can be fixed. A lack of rights to material that has already gone into a nationwide campaign is much harder to fix.

About the author

Natalia Łukawska – attorney (adwokat), founder of Influ na Legalu. She advises influencers, marketing agencies and brands on contracts, advertising, copyright and running influencer marketing campaigns, including in regulated industries and the beauty sector.