No. Naming the artist does not give you permission to use the artist’s music.
Credit answers one question: Who created this?
Permission answers another: May I use it this way?
Those are not the same question.
Credit Is Not a License
Writing “music by,” linking to the artist’s account, or adding “I do not own the rights” may be courteous. It does not create a license, transfer any rights, or make an otherwise infringing use lawful.
The same is true of familiar disclaimers such as:
- “No copyright infringement intended.”
- “All rights belong to the artist.”
- “For entertainment purposes only.”
- “Please support the original creator.”
None of those phrases grants permission. YouTube itself warns creators that giving credit does not automatically provide the rights needed to use copyrighted material.
Credit may be required after you obtain permission—for example, because a Creative Commons license or negotiated agreement requires attribution. But satisfying a credit requirement is not a substitute for obtaining the license in the first place.
A Song May Involve More Than One Copyright
Recorded music ordinarily involves at least two different protected works:
- The musical composition—the music and lyrics.
- The sound recording—the particular recorded performance.
Those rights may be controlled by different people or companies. Crediting the performer does not necessarily identify, much less obtain permission from, everyone whose rights are involved.
Buying the song, subscribing to a music service, or linking to the artist’s Spotify page also does not ordinarily include the right to place that recording into your video, podcast, advertisement, livestream, or Patreon production.
Does Giving Credit Make It Fair Use?
No. Attribution is not a substitute for fair-use analysis.
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, fair use requires a fact-specific examination of the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the original work, the amount and importance taken, and the effect upon the potential market.
Crediting the artist does not transform the music, explain why it was necessary, reduce the amount used, or prevent the new production from interfering with a licensing market.
A creator might have a defensible fair-use argument when the music itself is being criticized, examined, compared, or discussed. Using the same music merely to establish a mood, energize an introduction, fill silence, or make a production more entertaining presents a very different argument.
Platform Permission Is Also Limited
Music available through a platform’s library may come with a license, but that license has terms. It may apply only:
- On that platform.
- To particular account types.
- To noncommercial uses.
- In certain countries.
- For a limited period.
- To videos made through a particular feature.
A song being available for an Instagram Reel does not necessarily mean it can be used in a YouTube video, podcast, advertisement, or downloadable production.
The license—not the presence of an attribution line—determines what the creator may do.
The Practical Takeaway
Before using music, identify the actual basis for the use:
- Permission or an appropriate license.
- Music commissioned under a written agreement covering the intended use.
- A platform library used within its stated terms.
- A verified public-domain work and recording.
- A genuinely supportable copyright exception, including fair use where applicable.
Credit the artist. Clear the rights. Do not confuse one with the other.
If the music matters to your production—or to your channel—Matthew B. Harrison and Harrison Legal Group can review the intended use before publication rather than after a claim, takedown, or licensing demand arrives.
For the broader framework, visit the Copyright & Fair Use Resource Center or read Playing the Clip.