Filed in the Delhi High Court, Zee Entertainment’s INR 2 crore damages suit against Nykaa‘s parent FSN E-Commerce Ventures directly confronts the commercial use of platform-native music libraries in branded content.
Industry projections made in 2025 estimated that India’s digital advertising market would reach INR 1,37,099 crore in 2025, with social media leading growth at 16.4 percent and short-form video at 12.9 percent. Digital pure players: search, social and short-form video command almost 50 percent of the advertising market.
India’s influencer marketing industry, which sits at the core of brand-reel culture, was valued at INR 3,000-3,500 crore in 2025 and is expected to expand to INR 4,500-5,000 crore by 2027, according to a report by Konfluence.
Against this commercial backdrop, music has become one of the most potent tools for brand engagement on social media, often used without a second thought about licensing and rights holders have noticed.
“Companies such as Zee Entertainment Enterprises, T-Series, Saregama and others are recognising that short-form video platforms have fundamentally altered the economics of music consumption and advertising. Historically, social media virality indirectly promoted music labels. Today, however, brands, influencers and digital advertisers monetise copyrighted music as a central component of commercial campaigns. Media companies therefore increasingly view unlicensed social-media exploitation as revenue leakage rather than mere promotional exposure,” said Tushar Kumar, advocate, Supreme Court of India.
The Dispute
Zee holds a licensing agreement with Meta that permits its music to be used on Instagram, but only for non-commercial purposes. Zee’s case is that Nykaa, a for-profit beauty and fashion brand, used that music to promote products in promotional reels, crossing the line from permitted personal use into commercial exploitation requiring separate authorisation.
According to reports, Nykaa’s lawyers have argued that Meta, as Instagram’s parent and Zee’s licensee, should be impleaded as a necessary party, contending that the licensing framework cannot be examined without the platform’s involvement and that only Instagram has the technical ability to mute or remove infringing content.
“Broadcasters and music labels typically maintain significant business relationships with social media platforms and, as a matter of strategy, generally avoid litigating against them,” said Mohit Lahoty, partner at Think Law.
“Legally, Nykaa may attempt to shift or dilute liability by arguing that it relied upon Instagram’s in-platform licensed music library and that Meta represented such usage as permissible. However, that would at best become a defence of bona fide reliance or indemnity-related argument between Nykaa and Meta. It does not automatically extinguish Nykaa’s independent obligations under the Copyright Act, 1957,” said Anushkaa Arora principal & founder, ABA Law Office.
“Indian copyright law generally treats commercial exploitation without authorization as a primary act of infringement, irrespective of platform architecture,” Arora added.
“Nykaa is clearly a for‑profit company and the content in question was promotional. This could be one of the reasons why Zee did not make Meta a party. Further one must remember that Meta will be a critical enforcement partner in combating large‑scale piracy and a dispute could disrupt a valuable relationship,” Apurv Sardeshmukh, managing partner and co-founder, Stride Legal.
This case raises one more question – if Meta is an intermediary, why does it seek music licences at all?
“Meta seeking music licences does not dilute its intermediary position—it reflects that platform hosting and copyright clearance are legally distinct. Safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act protects passive intermediaries, not commercial exploitation. If a business account uses music in branded promotional reels, courts may closely examine whether the platform remained a neutral intermediary or enabled monetised use,” said Raheel Patel, partner, Gandhi Law Associates.
“The safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act insulates Meta only for third-party user-generated content. When Meta proactively facilitates the use of copyright protected songs through a music library to users, it is no longer a passive intermediary, and can be liable for copyright infringement absent a valid licence. Meta, therefore, obtained a licence from Zee, for use in non-commercial posts. That licence permits Meta to legally offer the songs on the platform for personal use,” said Bharadwaj Jaishankar, partner, CMS INDUSLAW.
“Even if Meta qualifies as an intermediary, it seeks music licenses to provide a lawful library to users. This is a proactive compliance step—safe harbour does not exempt platforms from obtaining rights for copyrighted content they actively curate or distribute to their users,” said Vihan Dang, partner, Obhan Mason.
Safe Harbour
The safe harbour question is where the dispute becomes legally significant for the wider digital ecosystem. Section 79 protection is conditional, as it requires the intermediary to act passively, exercise due diligence, and respond to actual knowledge of infringement.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries established that safe harbour cannot override copyright owners’ rights, and that a detailed notice from a rights holder pointing to offending content is sufficient to trigger takedown obligations, as Sripriya Padmanabhan, partner, QL Partners notes.
“In the present context, Zee Music Company’s licence to Meta is meant only for personal, non-commercial use, and that certain business accounts may not have access to it. These restrictions support Meta’s position that it did not authorize commercial use of the music by business accounts such as Nykaa,” Padmanabhan added.
“Since Meta appears to have voluntarily entered into a music license agreement with Zee, the matter is purely contractual. Consequently, Meta cannot claim protection under the “safe harbour” provisions,” said Lahoty.
The question is whether Meta, which can technically identify verified brands, business accounts, paid partnerships, and ad-linked reels, has a positive duty to prevent commercial misuse of a non-commercial licence, rather than waiting for takedown notices.
Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India notes, “Imposing ex ante monitoring obligations would conflict with the safe harbour framework, but the presence of a business account could influence judicial assessment of foreseeability and platform diligence.”
The Commercial-vs-Non-Commercial Test
Indian copyright law offers no mechanical definition distinguishing commercial from non-commercial use in social media contexts. Courts examine substance, not labels.
As Jaishankar notes, “Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is the primary framework—copyright is infringed when a person, without licence, exercises an exclusive right of the owner. Section 52’s fair dealing exceptions are narrow and do not create a broad non-commercial carve-out.”
Sardeshmukh observes that the Act focuses more on the distinction between public and private use: commercial public usage (hotels, events, advertising) requires licensing; private educational or personal use may qualify for fair dealing.
Alka Mehta, founding partner, Minara Legal says, “If a reel is promoting a product, service, or brand visibility, it is likely to be treated as commercial use, even if the content appears informal or creator-led.”
Across expert opinion, the tests that courts typically are as follows: whether the content promotes a product, service, or brand; whether the account belongs to a business entity; whether there is advertising revenue, affiliate benefit, or paid amplification; and whether the copyrighted work materially enhances brand visibility or consumer engagement.
The “dominant purpose” of the content, not its format, is the determinative factor for courts. A Nykaa reel promoting lipstick to millions of followers might not be a personal expression, even if it uses the same trending audio track that an individual might casually share.
“Indian media companies now view music catalogues as premium commercial assets,” says Arora. “Earlier, many infringements were tolerated as incidental publicity. Today, rights owners are aggressively enforcing licensing boundaries because branded digital content generates enormous commercial value.”
What Brands Must Now Reckon With
India’s influencer marketing sector runs almost entirely on short-form video. Music is the connective tissue of that content. If the Zee-Nykaa case establishes that commercial brands cannot freely use platform-native licensed music for promotional reels, the impact on brand content strategy, platform policy, and licensing will be watched.
As Padmanabhan notes, the case could ultimately define the extent of Meta’s positive compliance obligations under its licensing arrangements, determine how Indian courts calibrate intermediary liability for hybrid platforms that both host and commercially exploit content, and establish a framework for what constitutes commercial use in the creator economy. The next hearing is May 26.
(We sought comments from Meta and Zee, no comments were received till the time of publication)
