Sony Music Lawsuit Against USC Seeks A Major Sum

What's the penalty for using unlicensed music? Well, depending on how Sony Music's lawsuit against the University of Southern California shakes out, it could be a very hefty sum.

Sony Music is suing USC for allegedly using its music in hundreds of social media posts without paying for it. Let's look at what the issues are and what it might cost USC if it loses the lawsuit.

Origin Of The Sony Music Lawsuit

Sony Music alleges that USC has used the company's music in hundreds of its social media posts without obtaining a license. More specifically, the lawsuit cites 283 different videos containing music that the label owns partially or in its entirety, either by owning part of the song's publishing, the master recording rights, or both. Sony says USC published these videos on its Instagram and TikTok accounts without first acquiring licenses to do so. 

Some of the pieces of copyrighted content in question include some of the biggest artists in the world, including Michael Jackson, AC/DC, Britney Spears, Usher, Harry Styles, and more. Sony alleges these songs were included in accounts mostly promoting USC's various athletic programs. The company also draws the connection between use of the songs in the videos and commerce, saying USC uses these videos to sell tickets and merchandise.  

Sony also says they've been in contact with USC since as early as 2021 about the alleged copyright infringement, to which USC also allegedly acknowledged the use of the songs. "Despite having been on notice of its infringing conduct, USC has repeatedly failed to obtain licenses for its use of Sony Music sound recordings on the USC Social Media Pages, although it has acknowledged that it needs music licenses, that music licenses must be paid for, that music licenses can be expensive, and that music license requests may be denied," Sony Music says in the lawsuit.

What Does Sony Want

Sony is asking for statutory copyright damages of $150,000 per infringed song, or what amounts to $42,450,000 for the 283 instances. (While music licenses can be expensive depending on the artist you're trying to license, it almost certainly would've cost a fraction of that to purchase rights to use the songs). 

The two institutions reportedly discussed settlement options in January, but given Sony just recently filed this complaint, it seems there's likely more moves to be made before there's a resolution. Not for nothing, Sony Music also noted in their lawsuit that USC is a private research institution with operating revenues of more than $7 billion. The lawsuit also mentions other financial figures related to the university, including head football coach Lincoln Riley's $19 million paycheck in 2023 and the athletic program's reported $212 million in revenue for fiscal year 2022-2023.

All of this information certainly points to Sony making the case that USC was both very aware of its legal requirement to pay for music licenses and very able to do so. Sony has also sued other companies for using music without licenses, including Marriott last year, in which it sought $139 million in damages for misusing its copyrighted property. The two companies agreed to end that lawsuit with prejudice, though they also declined to publicly disclose if they reached a financial settlement (or other terms of the agreement).  

How To Avoid Getting Sued

So you may be wondering how some people can freely use copyright music from the likes of Sony Music artists in their social posts while others can't. That essentially comes down to which platforms are being used and who is using them. 

Individuals on social media are typically able to use these popular songs in their content because the platforms reach big blanket licensing deals with the rights holders. This means that ultimately the platforms pay out a pool of money every year, and owners of that intellectual property gets paid. It's usually a fairly small amount per video (often considered a micro license), but it can amount to significant money both in publishing and master ownership if a song gets used in a lot of videos. Notably, the number of views doesn't matter — only the number of videos using those songs. So 10 videos with a combined 10 million views would make significantly less than 10,000 videos with a combined 10 million views. 

However, if you're a business (which both USC and Marriott are), you have different rules you have to follow. These accounts are only allowed to use sounds and songs that are approved in commercial music libraries within the apps. This is usually because record labels and rights holders know that businesses can (and should) pay to use these songs, as they're often using them to promote products to a much wider audience. And that's where USC (allegedly) messed up. 

If they create videos with songs that aren't in the commercial music library, they're likely going to get flagged. YouTube has a different licensing agreement, one that often just leads to monetization of a video being either partially or fully re-routed to the rights holder. But on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, you either need to obtain those licenses or take down that content. (Anybody remember the issue with Twitch licensing?). 

So for individual creators, try your best to only use music officially licensed through apps or, in the case of YouTube, be willing to forego all of your monetization when you use copyrighted material. If you're a busy or have a business account, you must abide by the rules and not use music that isn't available via commercial music libraries.