Music travels faster than contracts. A track can show up in a paid TikTok campaign, an Instagram Reel for a brand launch, or a YouTube pre-roll montage before your team even knows it happened. The tricky part is that “enforcement” is rarely just one action. The right legal partner should help you identify uses, confirm rights, choose the right remedy (takedown, retroactive license, settlement, or escalation), and protect long-term relationships with agencies and platforms.

Choosing the wrong legal company for music rights enforcement can cost you twice: you miss revenue you could have captured, and you create unnecessary risk by sending weak claims, poor evidence, or inconsistent outreach. Below is a practical framework to evaluate legal companies and enforcement partners so your rights program is effective, scalable, and aligned with your business goals.

Note: This article is general information, not legal advice. For advice on your situation, consult qualified counsel.

Start with clarity: what “enforcement” means for your catalog

Before you compare firms, define what you want enforced and what “success” looks like. Music rights enforcement can touch multiple rights and multiple outcomes.

Identify which rights you actually need to enforce

Most commercial social usage involves copyright, but the relevant rights vary by asset:

• Sound recording (master) rights (typically labels, artists, investors)

• Composition/publishing rights (publishers, writers, administrators)

• Trademarks and brand use (label/artist names, logos, trade dress)

• Right of publicity (in some contexts involving likeness or endorsement style claims)

If your chain of title is incomplete or messy (splits, samples, expired agreements, missing metadata), even the best legal company will struggle to act confidently.

Decide whether your priority is removal, revenue, or both

Different partners optimize for different outcomes:

• Pure takedown and brand protection: fast removal, lower tolerance for negotiation

• Monetization and retroactive licensing: focus on converting unauthorized commercial uses into paid licenses

• Hybrid: prioritize high-value commercial uses for licensing, and reserve takedowns for clear abuse

The right legal company should be comfortable discussing tradeoffs, not just sending notices.

Understand the types of “legal companies” you may be evaluating

In music rights enforcement, the label “legal company” can mean very different things. Some are law firms. Others are tech-enabled enforcement providers. Others are licensing-focused operators with legal escalation.

The best approach is often a tiered model: technology and workflow for detection and triage, with legal counsel for negotiation posture, risk review, and escalation when needed.

The evaluation criteria that matter (and why)

1) Demonstrated music rights expertise (not generic IP)

Ask whether the team can speak fluently about common music scenarios:

• Master vs composition conflicts and split ownership realities

• UGC, short-form video norms, and platform-specific licensing ecosystems

• Paid social ads and “commercial use” gray areas

• How they validate rights before making claims

A partner that primarily handles patents or general business disputes may be competent legally but ineffective operationally for high-volume social usage.

2) Monitoring coverage and detection quality

Enforcement is only as good as discovery. A strong partner should explain:

• Which platforms are monitored (and whether monitoring includes paid ads, not only organic posts)

• How detection works (automated detection of IP use, plus human validation)

• How they reduce false positives and handle edge cases like remixes, sped-up audio, live recordings, or background music

If the answer is “we’ll see what we can find,” you are buying guesswork.

3) Evidence standards and documentation discipline

For social and ad-driven uses, evidence can disappear quickly. Your partner should have a clear approach to:

• Capturing the post/ad context (date/time, handle, creative, campaign, landing page)

• Preserving proof of use before it’s edited or removed

• Connecting the use to a decision-maker (brand, agency, advertiser) and documenting outreach

This is also where reputable partners separate themselves from spammy “copyright trolls.”

4) A clear enforcement playbook (not one-size-fits-all)

A good legal company should be able to map your escalation path with options and constraints:

• Informal outreach and education

• Retroactive licensing requests and settlement structures

• Platform notice-and-takedown mechanisms

• Formal demand letters

• Litigation or arbitration strategy where appropriate

In the US, online copyright enforcement frequently intersects with the DMCA framework. If they handle takedowns, they should understand the requirements and risks of notices and counter-notices under Section 512 (see the U.S. Copyright Office overview of the DMCA).

5) Licensing competence (especially for commercial social usage)

Many rights holders do not want “removal at all costs.” They want revenue and relationships, particularly when the user is a brand, agency, or well-funded creator.

Evaluate whether the partner can:

• Identify licensing opportunities from unauthorized uses

• Route the opportunity to the right license type (social usage, paid ads, sync-style use cases)

• Run outreach that is firm but commercially credible

• Facilitate sync license conversations when appropriate

If licensing is a goal, choose a partner that treats enforcement as a pipeline, not just a compliance task.

6) Transparency, reporting, and auditability

You should expect consistent reporting that helps you answer:

• What was found (and where)

• What was actioned (and why)

• What outcomes occurred (takedown, license, settlement, no action)

• What revenue was generated, and how it was calculated

If a provider cannot explain how they measure outcomes beyond “we sent X notices,” you may be optimizing the wrong metric.

7) Conflicts of interest and reputational risk

A partner’s tactics can affect how agencies and brands perceive your catalog.

Ask directly:

• Do they represent other rights holders that could create conflicts?

• Do they have guidelines to avoid over-claiming or claiming uncertain rights?

• How do they handle disputes where ownership is ambiguous?

You want a partner that helps you win, not one that creates unnecessary backlash or counter-claims.

8) Fee structure that aligns incentives

Common models you may see include:

• Hourly legal fees (typical for law firms)

• Flat fees or retainers (predictable, but scope must be defined)

• Contingency or success fees (aligns incentives, but definitions matter)

If you consider a success-based model, clarify in writing:

• What counts as “recovered” revenue

• Whether platform monetization is included or excluded

• Whether fees apply to deals you close independently after an introduction

• How long the tail period lasts

Misaligned incentives can lead to either over-enforcement (too aggressive) or under-enforcement (low effort).

Use a simple scorecard to compare partners objectively

When choices get political internally, a scorecard keeps the decision grounded.

You can tailor weights based on whether your priority is removal, monetization, or both.

Questions to ask on the first call (and what answers should sound like)

Use these questions to quickly separate serious operators from generic providers:

• “How do you validate rights before taking action?” You want a clear intake process (catalog import/metadata, ownership confirmation, exclusions), not guesswork.

• “How do you prioritize what to enforce?” Look for a value-based approach (commercial use, paid ads, brand scale, repeat behavior), not “everything gets a notice.”

• “What is your approach to brand and agency outreach?” The best teams balance firmness with deal-making.

• “What does your escalation ladder look like?” They should articulate steps and decision points, including when to involve outside counsel.

• “What outcomes do you typically drive?” They should talk in terms of licenses, settlements, removals, and relationship outcomes, not only volume.

• “Who owns the data and work product?” You should retain access to your evidence trail and results.

If they cannot answer these clearly, it is a sign their process is not mature.

Red flags that usually mean “keep looking”

Some warning signs are consistent across enforcement providers:

• Overpromising outcomes (guaranteed revenue, guaranteed removals, unrealistic timelines)

• No discussion of rights validation (high risk of false claims)

• Aggressive tactics as the default with no room for commercial licensing

• Vague platform coverage or an inability to describe how detection works

• Reporting that is only activity-based (“we sent 1,000 emails”) without outcomes

• Unclear ownership of contacts and evidence (you should not be locked out)

In short, you want discipline, not drama.

How to run a low-risk pilot before committing long term

A pilot is the fastest way to test fit without betting your catalog.

Define scope tightly

Pick a subset where results will be meaningful:

• A focused catalog segment (top tracks, top writers, or a single imprint)

• A defined set of platforms (for example TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, paid social surfaces where relevant)

• A clear “commercial use” definition for your team

Pick KPIs tied to your goals

Avoid vanity metrics. Better KPIs include:

• Number of validated unauthorized commercial uses identified

• Number of high-value opportunities prioritized

• Response rate from brands/agencies

• Licenses or settlements executed (and time to first outcome)

• Internal time saved (how much manual work your team avoided)

Put governance in writing

Even in a pilot, clarify:

• Approval rules (who signs off on outreach, what requires legal review)

• Messaging guidelines (tone, settlement ranges if any, and what not to say)

• Data handling and access

This is how you stay consistent across regions, imprints, and stakeholders.

Where Third Chair fits in a modern enforcement stack

Third Chair is built for rights holders who want to monitor, enforce, and license intellectual property across platforms, turning unauthorized uses into revenue and accelerating deal flow. For music and media companies, this approach can be especially valuable when the opportunity is not just removal, but converting real commercial usage into licensing conversations.

If you want to see what this looks like in practice, these examples show different enforcement and monetization patterns:

• Soundstripe case study (monitoring social usage and converting unlicensed uses into licensing opportunities)

• Black 17 Media case study (prioritizing commercial uses across major platforms and building a repeatable workflow)

• Symphonic Distribution case study (scalable remediation of unlicensed commercial uses for a distribution client base)

The key selection takeaway: whether you choose a law firm, a platform, or a blended approach, prioritize partners that can prove they do three things well, find the uses, validate the rights and evidence, and execute a strategy that matches your business goals.

Make the decision like an operator, not like a shopper

The best legal company for music rights enforcement is the one that fits your reality: your catalog complexity, your tolerance for friction, your appetite for licensing revenue, and your need for scalable workflows.

If you want a practical next step, consider asking potential partners for a limited pilot with clear KPIs and sample reporting. You will learn more in 30 days of real workflow than in 10 sales calls.

When you are ready to explore a structured approach to monitoring, enforcement, and licensing, you can learn more about Third Chair at usethirdchair.com.