We analysed 350,000 TikTok posts from 1,000+ brands across an 18-month period to understand how music is actually being used in commercial social content. This is what we found.

The headline figure is significant: over 32,000 posts with no clear evidence of commercial licensing, representing more than 2 billion views, 120 million likes, 8 million shares and 2 million comments. The estimated earned media value captured by that content is approximately $56 million.

The brands in the dataset represent less than 1% of those actively using TikTok commercially. What we found in that 1% was enough to answer the question we started with.

But the more useful picture is in the detail — which patterns emerged, how the gap between music use and documented licensing plays out at scale, and what the data means for the different parties involved.

How we conducted the research

The methodology was straightforward. We selected 1,000+ brands with active TikTok presences, spanning consumer goods, fashion, food and beverage, financial services, entertainment and retail, and collected data on 350,000+ posts published between July 2024 and January 2026.

For each post containing music, we identified the recording using dual ACR fingerprinting and native platform metadata, cross-referenced against multiple sources to identify title, artist, writers, label and publishers. The system handles the realities of social audio: speed and pitch changes, remixes, mashups, samples, covers and background music.

We then assessed the licensing context. Was there clear evidence of commercial licensing for that use, or was the picture unclear?

We classified posts as having "no clear licensing evidence" where the music came from a major label catalogue or significant independent release, and where we could find no evidence of a direct commercial licence, sync agreement, ad spend or Commercial Music Library listing covering the commercial use.

This is not a finding of infringement. Establishing infringement requires legal process and detailed rights holder data. What the research measures is the gap between the scale of commercial music use and the scale of documented commercial licensing.

The scale of unclear commercial licensing

More than 32,000 posts carried no clear licensing evidence. Spread across 1,000+ brands, that is an average of roughly 32 posts per brand where the commercial licensing position is ambiguous at best.

More than 79% of the brands we analysed were using music from major or significant independent catalogues with no clear evidence of a commercial licence. That is the number that reframes this from a problem with some brands to a pattern across the market.

The 2 billion views attached to that content measure how widely it circulated. This is not music sitting in unpublished drafts. It is music in content that audiences watched, shared, liked and commented on at scale.

The 8,000+ unique titles identified show the breadth of catalogue involved. This is not a small number of viral tracks used repeatedly. It is a wide cross-section of music from major and significant independent catalogues appearing in commercial content with no clear licensing trail.

One detail matters more than it first appears: the posts in our dataset had fewer than 1 million views each. These sit below the threshold where you would expect to find marketing budget or formal clearance. This is not campaign work with a licensing line in the budget. It is routine, day-to-day brand content — which is precisely why it accumulates unnoticed.

How patterns emerged across brands

The 1,000-brand dataset reveals patterns that go beyond individual cases.

Music use in commercial social content tends to follow trend cycles rather than deliberate licensing decisions. When a track gains momentum on TikTok — a viral sound, a trending audio clip, cultural momentum — brand accounts respond quickly, using the same audio because it is what audiences are engaging with. The decision is creative and reactive, not licensing-led.

This means the brands most likely to have unclear licensing positions are often those moving fastest on trends, not those with the least compliance awareness. The pattern is structural. It is built into how fast-moving social content gets produced.

Sector patterns were also visible. Brand categories with younger target audiences and higher-frequency social output showed higher rates of unclear licensing. Categories with established legal and compliance functions showed lower rates — not because the rules were different, but because licensing considerations were more embedded in the content workflow.

What the data means for rights holders

For labels, publishers and the artists they represent, 2 billion views of content with no clear commercial licensing evidence — and an estimated $56 million in earned media value — represents a significant body of activity that current monitoring may not be capturing at the level of commercial specificity needed for effective licensing conversations.

Rights holders have access to identification technology. The question is whether they have a complete, commercially contextualised view of brand activity specifically: which brands, which tracks, what scale, what context. The data suggests commercial social content is a significant category of music use sitting outside the picture mainstream monitoring currently provides.

What the data means for brands

For brands, the research reflects a structural issue in content workflows rather than deliberate disregard for licensing. Music decisions are made quickly, platforms make adding music easy, and the commercial licensing implications rarely form part of the production process.

That is not a comfortable finding, but knowing that a meaningful number of posts carry an ambiguous licensing status is useful information. It is also a solvable problem. Brands that understand what is in their content, and why certain categories of music use carry licensing uncertainty, are better positioned to make informed decisions about workflow and licensing practice.

What the data means for artists

The 2 billion views figure deserves consideration from the artist perspective. The 8,000+ unique titles in our dataset belong to artists who recorded them and writers who composed them. That content reached audiences at significant scale.

In most cases, neither the artist nor anyone in their team knows which specific brand posts used their music, or that it was contributing to that kind of commercial reach.

That is a visibility gap that goes beyond licensing. It is a gap in basic knowledge about where music is going and what it is being associated with. Artists making decisions about sync placements, brand partnerships and catalogue development would benefit from knowing what commercial activity their music is already part of.

The methodology's limitations

We want to be direct about what this research does and does not show.

"No clear licensing evidence" is not the same as "unlicensed." Rights holders may have licensing arrangements we do not have direct visibility into. Some commercial use may be covered by agreements that are not publicly accessible. Our assessment is based on available evidence, not on comprehensive rights holder data.

The research is designed to measure the scale of the visibility gap — how much commercial use of music is happening at a level that is not clearly documented and traceable. What that means in any individual case requires more detailed investigation.

Why we published this

We built Trakr to provide visibility into how music moves through social and digital content, and to recover the value that moves with it. This research is part of that: making the gap between music use and documented licensing visible, because that gap affects brands, rights holders and artists differently, and understanding it is the prerequisite for any of the conversations that follow.

Since completing this founding research and beginning client work, our dataset has grown substantially. The patterns identified here have held and deepened across more brands, more platforms and more catalogue.

The full dataset is available to qualified rights holders and brands on request.