Zee v. Nykaa – Navigating Music Licensing in the Realm of Digital Media Marketing

Introduction

The recent Zee v. Nykaa copyright infringement matter[1] has brought to surface a crucial copyright issue pertaining to commercial use of copyrighted music available on various social media platforms.

An often-overlooked part of copyright, this case delves deep into discussing whether the ready availability of copyrighted music on social media platforms, allows third-party brands to use it for promotion and advertisement of their products and services. In reality, the scope of use of music libraries on social media for commercial purposes, may be quite limited in nature, and may require for an exclusive authorization/ separate license to be taken from relevant copyright holders.

This matter contributes to the debate concerning the licensing of music on social media platforms, role and responsibility of intermediaries, and the scope of use of copyrighted music by brands/content creators.

Background of the Case

On 3^rd April 2026, Zee Entertainment (“Zee”), one of the biggest entertainment companies in India, filed a suit alleging copyright infringement against Nykaa’s parent company, FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd. As per the allegations by Zee, Nykaa had without obtaining authorization, used Zee’s copyright music on their Instagram reels (“infringing reels”) for their brand promotion and advertising. Aggrieved by such unauthorized use of their copyrighted work, Zee filed the lawsuit claiming damages of approximately INR 2 crores. Further, Zee also identified the infringing reels uploaded by Nykaa, which were subsequently taken down by the latter after institution of the suit.

The primary contention as raised by Zee was that they had entered into a licensing contract with Meta Platforms (“Meta”), the parent company owning popular social media platforms, Facebook and Instagram. By virtue of the Meta licensing contract, Zee claimed, they had only allowed use of their copyrighted music through Instagram’s music library for personal and non-commercial reasons. Based on this, Zee in the matter, claimed that Nykaa’s use of their copyrighted songs in their brand promotional reels amounted to commercial use of their songs, which was beyond the scope covered under the Meta licensing contract.

Central Legal Issue – Extent and Scope of Use under Licensing Agreements

In order to understand the legality concerning the case, it is imperative to understand how copyright licensing works out in the domain of music. Firstly, under the Copyright Act 1957 in India, a copyright owner has the right to issue licenses to third-parties to use their copyrighted work[2]. With respect to musical compositions, for instance, a song may involve multiple copyrights, namely a) musical piece (composition and lyrics); and b) the sound recording.

The sound recording, which has a distinct copyright and different from copyright in the music piece, is produced and financed by recording labels (such as Zee) and therefore, they own the copyright in the sound recording, which is also called the master of the audio files.

In case a brand is interested in using the original created track, then they need to obtain the ‘Master License’ from the copyright owner. Since the sound recording is a distinct copyright from the musical composition and lyrics, only a recording label who has produced such track can issue the Master License. On the other hand, in circumstances wherein the music recording needs to be combined with new visual / performance content for advertisement or filming purposes, brands are required to obtain ‘Sync Licenses’ granted by the songwriter, music composer and/or the recording label, as per the usage requirements.

Under the models of ‘Platform Synchronisation Licensing’, the intermediary platform directly enters into licensing arrangement with the recording label and allows its users – individual or enterprise (depending on the nature of the license) – to add music to their promotional videos on the intermediary platform. The Zee-Meta licensing arrangement was covered under this type of licensing contract.

Elaborating further on the sync licensing agreements negotiated and entered into by intermediary platforms, record labels, being copyright owners, permit intermediary platforms such as Meta to hold copyrighted music collections, allowing their users to add such copyright music collection to their content uploaded on the platforms. At the same time, it is important to categorize these agreements into two,

a) for commercial promotion and advertisement; and

b) for personal and non-commercial use.

As per Zee, the scope of use of copyrighted music was only limited to personal and non-commercial purposes under a platform-level licensing arrangement.

Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that Meta’s Music Guidelines explicitly prohibits the usage of copyrighted music for commercial purposes unless the user provides proof of an appropriate license from the relevant copyright owner. These guidelines apply across all Meta platforms, including Instagram and Facebook and their music libraries. Therefore, in case of commercial usage of a copyrighted music, the user is expected to obtain the appropriate direct license from the copyright holder.

Liability of Nykaa and Meta

As per the claims made by Zee, the scope of usage covered under Zee-Meta licensing arrangement did not include commercial or non-personal usage of Zee’s copyrighted music. Therefore, before the court, Nykaa would be expected, being a user of Meta’s platform, to show that it conducted the due-diligence and obtained direct commercial use license from Zee.

While the infringing reels uploaded by Nykaa did not directly generate any revenue, however, they did contribute to Nykaa’s engagement on the social media platform, which is considered non-personal commercial use.

A recent development in the case arose when Nykaa sought to involve Meta as a party in the proceedings. Nykaa has reportedly contended that Meta must be included, as the latter can only give their assessment of their license terms with Zee and enable the court to determine whether Nykaa’s use of Zee’s music library, would amount to copyright infringement. As per Nykaa, Zee could bring Meta under the scope of ‘intermediary liability’[3] covered under the applicable law, provided Zee is able to prove that Meta has purposefully hosted the infringing content on their social media platform.

On the other hand, Meta being an intermediary platform, can rely upon the safe-harbour protection[4] accorded under the Information Technology Act, provided they are able to prove that they satisfied due-diligence requirements.

Implications of the Case

One of the key consequences which is expected to come out of this case, is the clearance of the misconception of brands and content creators that any song which is available on a social media’s music library is available for usage, whether commercial or non-commercial. Given the magnitude of the case and the involvement of parties such as Zee and Nykaa, brands are likely to become more cautious while doing promotional posts on social media and exploiting any musical work or sound recording as part of their promotional posts, pushing them to conduct the much required due-diligence activities.

Another notable consequence that may arise is the heightened awareness and knowledge about copyright licensing and the scope of coverage under such licenses. Not only will brands be more cautious about their own content, but will also ensure that content created by third-party content creators engaged by them, complies with the legal guidelines and obligations.

Conclusion

The case is still pending adjudication in Court; however, it has significant implications on India’s growing content and creator economy. As social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook continue to introduce new features and tools for content creation/engagement, the legal compliance and due-diligence associated with the use of such features/tools often takes a back-seat.

This ongoing case goes beyond the alleged infringing reels at issue, instead delves into how copyright enforcement and protection work in the realm of modern-day digital marketing. The fact that music is available in a social media’s music library does not automatically permit brands to use it for their advertisements, paid campaigns, influencer promotions, or other commercial purposes. Before using music in digital campaigns, brands should check platform terms, music library restrictions, campaign purpose, account type, and whether a direct licence from the copyright owner is needed.

Therefore, the case is likely to set out a significant precedent in guiding brands and marketing teams to navigate through the complexities of music licensing and copyright compliance in the space of digital media marketing and content creation.

Contributed by: Doyita Mukherjee and Suhani Gandhi, guidance by Aditi Verma Thakur

[1] Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. FSN E-Commerce Ventures Limited & Anr [CS(COMM) 408/2026]

[2] Section 30 of Copyright Act, 1957 – The owner of the copyright in any existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in any future work may grant any interest in the right by licence in [writing by him] or by his duly authorised agent: Provided that in the case of a licence relating to copyright in any future work, the licence shall take effect only when the work comes into existence

[3] Section 51(a)(ii) of Copyright Act, 1957- Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed— when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act, permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright.

[4] Section 79(1) of Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for safe harbour for internet intermediaries, provided they followed the due diligence requirements and acted as a neutral passive platform. The language reads – Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.