Influencers, Copyright & Brand Ownership: Who Owns Sponsored Content?
Introduction
In the contemporary changing world, the creator industry has made influencers the digital marketing giants, with sponsored content and brand partnerships, in which even a single Get Ready with Me reel on Instagram or a video reviewing a PR package haul on YouTube organically combines innovation and advertising. However, here remains a key question: who is the true owner of the copyright of the viral sponsored content? The person or the company that created the content or the brand that sponsored it?
The intricacies of these relationships have been highly debatable as we proceed in 2026 and the ownership schemes of the creator economy need to be broken down. This blog explores these ownership wars and how the two parties can cushion their interests. We will also point out the existing knowledge gaps in Indian legal framework on the socio-media content.
The influencer market is rapidly growing in India since the COVID-19 era. One industry report notes that it is “one of the fastest growing industries” worldwide, and in India, it is projected to grow about 25% per year [1]. An EY report similarly estimated the industry size to reach around Rs. 3,357 Crore by 2026 [2]. ASCI guidelines and the Copyright Act, 1957, add local twists to the scripting, filming, and editing of a sponsored video. Brands pay for promotion, often demanding “full ownership” or “perpetual licenses”. However, under Section 17 of the Act, the author retains moral and economic rights unless they are explicitly assigned. This means that by default, influencers own the raw footage, the edited final reel, and the artistic composition of their post. So, when a brand enters the picture, they are not necessarily buying the ownership of the art; rather, they are licensing to use that art.
The concept of work made-for-hire agreements
Ownership tilts via contract. “Work made for hire” clauses grant brand authorship if specified. As further discussed in Section 17(b) of the Act, a work made “on the commission of a publisher” or under a contract of service will initially be owned by the commissioner or the employer. However, this mechanism only works if a clear contractual arrangement exists. This was also reiterated in Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid [3], that a copyrightable work created by an independent contractor belongs to the contractor, absent a contract saying otherwise. Therefore, if an influencer signs a contract with the said clause, they are essentially forfeiting all rights. The brand becomes the legal “author.” This means the brand can sue, edit, and resell the content without further payment or permission.
Understanding Licenses
Most brand partnerships are not sales of your rights, they are licenses. This is the most common middle ground. The parties should specify ownership or license scope.
The influencers can retain the copyright but grant the brand a license to use the content. These licenses are usually defined by duration, platform, geography, and modification rights. They are of two types:
- Voluntary License, as defined under Section 30 of the Act, allows the owner to grant a license to an existing work. If the license relates to future work, it will come into force only when the work comes into existence.
- Compulsory License, as defined under Section 31 of the Act, provides someone the exclusive right to do an act without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Fair Dealing Myths
Brands often try to invoke the doctrine of fair dealing, under Section 52 of the Act, to tweak, repurpose or reuse the influencer content without paying or securing additional rights. But the sponsored posts rarely qualify as they are commercial, the transformative value is low, and the content was purpose-built for the brand.
Most importantly, when content is created solely for a brand campaign, any later reuse is rarely incidental. The promotional intent is embedded from the very beginning, and fair dealing cannot be used as a shortcut when parties have failed to clearly define copyright ownership and usage rights through a contract.
Legal Loopholes in Indian Law
Despite the general rules above, applying them to modern social media content can be tricky. As the Indian copyright law was drafted long before Instagram and YouTube existed, some of the scenarios remain ambiguous. As an example, such types of copyright as literary copyright, auditory copyright, artistic copyright, etc., can be present in one social media post. It can be a video post that contains a screenplay, images, music, and filming. The category under which the contribution occurs is not always evident and whether a contributor has individual rights. Also, independent contractors who produce digital content are not given any special provisions. It implies that a significant number of conflicts lack clear directions and that parties are to use the contract terms and principles of IP in general.
With these loopholes in the default law, the effective contracts are those that are written down. An influencer agreement is well-written and clear about the ownership of the content and the usage licenses presented [4]. It sets out the exact uses. A haphazard state of affairs can appear because of poor drafting of the contract, a report by ASCI of 2024 revealed that 40 percent of the Indian sponsored content does not specify IP terms [5].
Conclusion
Influencer marketing has taken up a massive portion of advertising in India, yet it has raised a lot of IP challenges. According to the Indian copyright law, a post in a social media is a creative work of the person who posted it, and therefore the creator receives the exclusive rights by default. To claim or otherwise widely utilize such content, those parties need to incorporate that intent into a contract. The important clauses must address ownership or licensing, use of the IP, time frame and other IP aspects. Without a defined set of agreements, a set of default rules come into effect, and the person who is the most influential as the owner of copyright is usually favoured.
The Indian legal system has not yet accustomed itself to the realities of the influencer economy, and this has created numerous grey areas with no court directions available. This renders diligent contracting as a requirement and not a luxury. Clarity of written contracts that exist between the brands and the influencers help in filling the gap between commercial expectation and copyright law. Defining the content ownership and usage rights at the beginning of the cooperation allows the brands and influencers to work with each other more easily and prevent the high cost of future conflicts.
Author:–Anvi Kumar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us atsupport@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
References
[1] Narula, R. & Dalal, S. (2025). Inside India’s legal playbook for influencers. Managing IP, available at:
https://www.managingip.com/article/2fgqzf9zgtfdtbs9n4lc0/sponsored-content/inside-indias-legal-playbook-for-influencers#:~:text=Influencer%20marketing%20is%20one%20of,by%202027%2C%20according%20to%20Statista
[2] Swarup, A. (2024). How influencer marketing is impacting brands in India. EY India, available at:
https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/media-entertainment/how-influencer-marketing-is-impacting-brands-in-india#:~:text=I%20n%20India%2C%20the%20influencer,innovation%2C%20creativity%20and%20entrepreneurial%20drive
[3] Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid 490 U.S. 730, 743 (1989), available at:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/730/
[4] LegitContracts Blog (2020). Social Media Influencer Agreements: 7 Critical Legal Mistakes, available at:
https://legitcontracts.info/2026/01/06/social-media-influencer-agreements-7-critical-legal-mistakes-brands-make-in-india-and-how-to-avoid-them/#:~:text=The%20single%20most%20common%20and,beyond%20the%20original%20campaign%20scope
[5] ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising (2024). https://ascionline.org/
[6] Copyright Act, 1957 (India), Sections 17, 30,31,52. Available at:
https://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf
