When Budweiser won advertising’s most prestigious Grand Prix award at Cannes Lions in 2025, it should have been a celebration. Instead, it became a symbol of everything wrong with how brands treat music creators. The beer giant’s “One Second Ads” campaign didn’t just use music from The Beatles, Queen, Beyoncé, and Taylor Swift, it literally boasted about paying artists “$0” for their work.
“All of this was only possible because of audio and music. Without the songs, this campaign would have never worked,”
the agency admitted in their award submission. Yet in the same breath, they celebrated “$0 spent on music rights” and bragged that “the songs were the campaign”, not just part of it, but the entirety.
This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s the latest, most brazen example of a systemic problem that’s poisoning the music industry: brands openly acknowledging music’s essential value while simultaneously celebrating their refusal to pay for it. And it’s this very devaluation that enables platforms like Spotify to justify microscopic streaming payouts, creating a vicious cycle that’s strangling artist revenues across the board.
From Hidden Theft to Public Celebration
The evolution of brand music exploitation tells a disturbing story. We’ve moved from companies quietly hoping to avoid detection to literally winning awards for avoiding artist compensation. The Cannes Lions jury president explicitly praised Budweiser’s campaign because “for one second of an ad you don’t have to pay rights or publishing”. The advertising industry is now giving its highest honors specifically for exploiting creators.
This shift represents more than legal infringement, it’s cultural vandalism. When a $128 billion company publicly celebrates avoiding payment to artists whose work they admit was “essential” to their success, it sends a clear message: music has no value worth paying for.
The Legal Battlefield: Brands Fighting Back
The brazenness has reached new heights with retailers like DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse. After being sued by Warner Music for using over 200 copyrighted works without permission, DSW filed counter-lawsuits against Sony, Universal, and BMG, claiming the music companies “encouraged, licensed, and allowed the very conduct about which they now complain”.
DSW’s defense strategy reveals the core contradiction: they argue that their business “depends on brand reputation” while simultaneously fighting to avoid paying for the music that builds that very reputation. It’s like claiming food is essential to your restaurant while refusing to pay suppliers.
The legal arguments fall apart under scrutiny. TikTok’s terms explicitly state services are for “private, non-commercial use,” yet brands claim confusion while their marketing teams clearly understand music’s commercial value enough to build entire campaigns around it.
The Economics Don’t Add Up
The mathematics of this exploitation are staggering. Proper music marketing and licensing costs are minimal compared to the legal consequences brands now face:
What licensing actually costs:
- Social media sync licensing: hundreds to low thousands of dollars
- Even major commercial placements: tens of thousands
- Budweiser could have properly licensed every track for less than their legal fees
What infringement costs:
- Statutory damages: $750-$30,000 per violation, up to $150,000 for willful infringement
- Gymshark: $44 million lawsuit from Sony Music
- Marriott: 931 separate infringements in settlement
Brands are risking millions to avoid paying thousands, all while publicly stating the music is essential to their success.
The Systemic Damage to Music’s Value
This corporate behavior doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s part of a broader devaluation of music that enables streaming platforms to justify poverty wages for artists. When major brands openly celebrate avoiding payment for music they admit is “essential,” it reinforces the cultural narrative that music should be free.
This systemic undervaluation cascades through the entire industry:
- Advertisers normalize exploitation, making proper music promotion and music PR harder to fund
- Artists struggle to invest in radio promotion and Spotify promotion when their work is systematically undervalued
- Music distribution becomes economically unviable for emerging artists
When brands worth billions refuse to pay for music while admitting it’s the “entirety” of their campaigns, they’re not just stealing from individual artists, they’re undermining the entire economic foundation of the music industry.
The False “Loopholes”
Budweiser’s “one-second” strategy highlights the intellectual dishonesty of these approaches. The campaign’s entire premise, that “real fans” can instantly recognize these songs, effectively undermines any argument that the extracts lack originality or distinctiveness. If one second is memorable enough to build a 68-million-impression campaign around, it’s significant enough to require licensing.
Legal experts are already questioning the strategy. European courts ruled in the Kraftwerk case that even very short samples require licensing for recordings, and Budweiser has “publicly celebrated the characteristic that makes their use potentially legally vulnerable” by admitting the clips are instantly recognizable.
Industry Pushback and the Reckoning Ahead
The music industry is fighting back with unprecedented force. Major labels have deployed entire teams to scour online platforms for unlicensed usage, and automated detection systems are making violations nearly impossible to hide.
Settlement amounts are rising as deterrents, with recent cases reaching millions of dollars. But the real change needs to come from brands themselves recognizing that their current path is economically suicidal and culturally destructive.
Industry voices are calling out the hypocrisy. As one music industry executive noted: “This wasn’t a win for creativity. It was a loss for the culture”. Audio branding expert Shez Mehra perfectly captured the contradiction: “Imagine a musician using ‘one second’ of a Budweiser logo. See how fast the AB InBev legal team shows up…”
The Path Forward: Valuing What You Use
The solution isn’t complex, it’s about aligning actions with stated values. Brands that claim to support creativity and culture must stop celebrating their exploitation of creators. This means:
- Proper music licensing from the start – Budget for music rights as you would any other essential creative service
- Industry accountability – Stop giving awards for avoiding artist compensation
- Cultural shift – Recognize that undervaluing music hurts the entire creative ecosystem
- Economic honesty – If music is essential to your campaign’s success, compensate accordingly
Conclusion: The Choice Ahead
When a beer company admits songs are “the entirety” of their campaign while boasting about paying “$0” to creators, and the advertising industry gives them its highest award for it, we’ve reached a moral nadir. This isn’t just about individual cases of infringement, it’s about whether we’ll allow a systemic devaluation of music that makes it impossible for artists to earn a living.
The choice is stark: either brands start paying for the value they receive and publicly acknowledge, or they must stop pretending they support creativity and culture. The current path, celebrating exploitation while claiming to champion artists, is untenable and ultimately self-destructive.
Every time a brand chooses to circumvent music licensing while building campaigns around music’s power, they’re not just stealing from artists, they’re participating in the systematic destruction of music’s economic value. It’s time for that to stop.
Looking to Use Music in Your Campaign? Whether you’re launching a global ad or a niche social promo, using music the right way is critical. Our specialist licensing team is here to guide you through the process – from finding the perfect track to securing the appropriate rights. Let’s ensure your campaign hits the right notes and stays fully compliant. Start the conversation with our experts today.