Why the agreed rights may not cover later use

The issue usually arises when content moves beyond the originally agreed deliverables. Copyright protects original photographs, videos, music and artwork, giving the owner the exclusive right to carry out, or authorise, certain acts, including copying the work and communicating it to the public. Each additional use must therefore fall within the rights the brand has secured. 

Paying for content does not necessarily transfer copyright ownership. As a general rule under UK law, the individual who creates a commissioned photograph or video is the first owner unless an exception applies, they are acting in the course of employment (in which case the first owner will be their employer) or the copyright is assigned in writing. A brand will therefore often receive a licence covering specified uses, periods, territories and channels. 

Creators will also have moral rights, which are distinct from copyright ownership. Depending on the circumstances, these may include the right to be identified as the author or director and the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work. Moral rights cannot be assigned, although they may be waived in writing so, unless the contract includes an express waiver, proposed edits and attribution arrangements should be checked separately from the copyright licence.

Influencers may also be able to challenge use of their image under the law of passing off if republishing of commissioned content falsely implies endorsement of a product after their agreement has expired. 

Agreements with third-party creators should define permitted channels, territories, duration, paid amplification, editing rights (including whether modification using AI is allowed) and attribution, with those limits recorded in a form campaign teams can follow. Otherwise, routine reuse may breach the licence and lead to takedown demands, additional fees, claims or campaign disruption.

Where things typically go wrong

1. Ownership and clearance: paying the creator does not clear the finished content 

Permission from the creator may not clear every element in the finished post. Rights in the footage may instead belong to a photographer, videographer or production company, while music, artwork, clips, typefaces or platform effects may be subject to separate rights or terms of use. A music licence covering an organic post, for example, may cover neither advertising nor use outside the original platform. Likewise, the fact that a creator is being paid for a post is likely to take it outside the scope of most standard non-commercial music licences offered by platforms. 

Permission to use the creator’s contribution does not necessarily allow the brand to reuse the finished post for commercial purposes. Agreements with creators often require them to clear all rights in the content. However, they may fail to do this, and a brand cannot rely on it as a defence if they do. 
 

2. Reuse across markets, channels and seasons: the licence may not keep pace 

The initial contract may not cover reuse across new markets, channels, formats or seasons; the licence does not expand automatically with each new use. 

For example, a campaign team might take a UK-only Instagram post, run it as global paid media, bring the asset back the following season or cut the creator’s video into shorter adverts. By doing so, the team may exceed the agreed duration, territory, platform, paid-use or editing rights. The reuse may also engage the creator’s moral rights and any separately agreed use of their name, likeness or other personal attributes; the UK does not recognise a standalone, general image right.

The key question is whether the proposed reuse remains within the original scope. A six-month UK licence for organic social posts, for example, may not cover later use on a global website or in paid advertising.

3. Third-party photographs and cultural moments: reposting is not a free pass 

Publicly available photographs, including red-carpet and fashion week images, are not free for commercial use. For example, a marketing team might download an image of an influencer or celebrity wearing the brand’s collection, credit the photographer, crop the image, add a discount code and run it in paid or organic media.

Although the brand may own the clothing and trade marks shown, the photographer, agency or another rights holder will usually own the copyright in the photograph. The influencer or celebrity cannot grant rights in a photograph they do not own, and credit does not replace permission to download, edit or republish.

Separate permissions may be required to use a person’s name or likeness, visible artwork or another brand’s logo, particularly if this could be interpreted as an endorsement. Public availability does not make an image available for campaign use.

Why this matters: the legal and commercial cost of getting the rights wrong

If a brand has not secured the necessary rights, a creator, photographer, music owner or other rightsholder may demand removal, payment, damages (which can be substantial in some jurisdictions) or a retrospective licence, and a platform may disable the content following a complaint. If the brand has exceeded an agreed licence, it may have to withdraw the asset or renegotiate after launch, when the rightsholder has greater leverage. 

The operational consequences can be equally serious: pausing media across markets, producing replacement assets, revising launch plans and recalling content distributed to regional teams, agencies or retail partners. A brand may also lose a timely cultural opportunity, waste production and media spend, and damage relationships with creators and the wider creative community. In short, failing to clear rights can turn a valuable campaign asset into a liability.

Four rights checks before reusing influencer content

Brands do not need to own every asset, but they must clear the finished content and confirm that each proposed use falls within permissions covering the relevant channels, territories, duration and edits. Before using influencer content, confirm the following: 

• Who owns each element? Identify the creator, photographer, videographer and any other rightsholders (including music, clips, artwork, logos and other third-party material. 
• What uses are permitted? Confirm the channels, accounts, paid and organic uses, formats, and editing rights (including the right to use AI, if needed). 
• Where and for how long? Ensure the territory and duration cover the campaign and any likely reuse.
• Who will monitor the licence? Maintain a clear rights record and diarise expiry dates to prevent unauthorised reuse. Check if assets need to be removed or hidden upon expiry (this often catches brands out with music licensing).

The takeaway: treat creator content as a rights-managed asset

For each item of influencer content, record the rightsholders, permitted uses, channels, territories, duration, editing permissions, attribution requirements and expiry date in a central rights matrix accessible to marketing, legal, agencies and regional teams. 

Influencer marketing is central to fashion communications, but rights management has not always kept pace with content repurposed across channels, markets and seasons. The key question is not only whether a campaign succeeds at launch, but whether the brand has secured, recorded and can evidence the rights required for every subsequent use. Effective rights management protects the content’s long-term value and the investment behind it.

^{Blog featured image: Emma Chamerlain in Stuart Weitzman's autumn 2025 campaign. Credits: Stuart Weitzman}