Guide
UGC & Content
Both
A non-exclusive UGC license lets the creator sell the same clip to other brands, including competitors — the default unless the contract says otherwise. A sole license reserves that clip for one brand, but the creator can typically still use it themselves. An exclusive license reserves it for one brand entirely, with the creator typically giving up their own use of it too. None of the three, alone, stops the creator making new content for a competitor — that needs a separate exclusivity clause.
A non-exclusive UGC license lets the creator sell or reuse the same clip with multiple brands — including direct competitors — and that is the default unless the contract explicitly says otherwise. A sole license reserves that specific clip for one brand, but the creator typically keeps the right to use and repost it themselves. An exclusive license reserves the clip for one brand entirely, and the creator typically gives up the right to use it again too. None of the three, on its own, stops the creator from making new content for a competitor — that requires a separate exclusivity clause.
UGC usage rights explained covers which channels, whether paid amplification is included, and how long the rights run for a given piece of content — but not the question of whether the same clip can also end up with a competitor. That's what the license type answers, and it's what this article goes deeper on.
The creator is the original owner of the copyright in the content they produce — UGC usage rights explained covers this in detail. The consequence here is simple: whatever the contract doesn't expressly grant away, the creator keeps. If the contract agrees channels, duration and paid amplification but stays silent on whether other brands may use the same clip, the creator is still free to license it to anyone else, including a direct competitor. That isn't a loophole — it's the license's default state, unless one of the other two types is agreed explicitly and in writing.
This is where most brands get caught out: they've agreed paid usage rights, a time window and creator attribution — but never put in writing whether the clip could also be sold to a competitor. By default, it can.
| License type | Can a competitor use the identical clip? | Can the creator still use/repost the clip themselves? | Does it stop the creator making new content for a competitor? | Typical price vs. the base fee |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-exclusive | Yes — unless agreed otherwise | Yes | No | Lowest — often included in the base fee |
| Sole | No, for this specific clip | Yes, typically | No | Moderate add-on |
| Exclusive | No | No, typically not | No — requires a separate exclusivity clause | Highest add-on |
Notice the last column on all three rows: none of the license types, by itself, stops the creator working with a competitor on new content. That's the single most common misunderstanding across all three — covered next.
A license type governs only the specific piece of content it covers — not the creator's future work. Even a fully exclusive license on one Reel doesn't stop the creator making a brand-new piece of content for a competitor the following week. If that's the protection a brand actually wants, the answer isn't the license type — it's an exclusivity clause, which governs who the creator may work with at all during a given period, independent of the license on any single clip.
The two solve different problems and are therefore often worth agreeing together, not as substitutes for each other: the license type decides what may happen to this clip; the exclusivity clause decides who the creator may make new content for. A brand that buys only an exclusive license and assumes it also covers future collaborations hasn't actually got the protection it thinks it has.
The figures below are a made-up worked example to illustrate the logic — not a real customer case or a rate drawn from the market.
A brand agrees a base fee of DKK 5,000 for one UGC video with non-exclusive usage rights. If the brand instead wants a sole license — so competitors can't get that specific clip, but the creator can still use it themselves — this example adds 50%, landing at DKK 7,500 in total. If the brand wants a fully exclusive license, where neither competitors nor the creator may use the clip again, this example sets the add-on at 100%, landing at DKK 10,000 in total. The specific percentages are chosen to illustrate that price typically rises with how much access is being closed off — not because they're a documented industry rate.
IF the clip is only needed briefly for testing or retargeting, and it doesn't matter much whether others use it too → non-exclusive is sufficient, and usually the cheapest choice.
IF the clip is going to be a central piece of your paid advertising, and you need certainty that no competitor can run the identical creative → ask for a sole license.
IF the clip shows something unique to your product that you never want reused anywhere — including on the creator's own profile → ask for a fully exclusive license.
IF what you actually want is to stop the creator working with competitors going forward, not just lock down one clip → what you need is an exclusivity clause, not just an exclusive license. The two are often worth agreeing together, but they don't solve the same problem.
In our experience, most brands genuinely only need non-exclusive usage rights — and rarely need more. Most UGC clips have a short useful life in an ad account before frequency drops off, and paying an add-on for a sole or exclusive license on every single asset is often wasted budget. Sole and exclusive licenses make the most sense for the small number of assets that actually become the centerpiece of a campaign over time — not as the default choice on everything produced. This is our operational experience running UGC and influencer programmes, not a general rule.
Yes. The creator keeps the copyright in anything the contract doesn't expressly grant away, and that includes the right to license the same clip to others, including competitors.
Usually yes — a sole license reserves the clip for one brand as against other brands, but doesn't automatically remove the creator's own right to use it unless the contract specifically says so.
No. An exclusive license governs who may use this specific clip. An exclusivity clause governs who the creator may make new content for during a given period. See exclusivity clauses in influencer contracts for the full breakdown.
Often in practice, but not necessarily in law. A broad buyout clause doesn't automatically remove the creator's moral rights under § 3 of the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright — see UGC usage rights explained for what a buyout actually covers, and what it doesn't.
Yes. Non-exclusive is purely about whether others may also use the clip — not about whether your own brand may put paid amplification behind it. Paid vs. organic usage rights is a separate question, covered in UGC usage rights explained.
Yes — the earlier it's agreed, the cheaper it typically is. See the usage-rights section in the UGC brief template and what to put in an influencer contract for the full clause list.
Make Influence
Find creators with real audience data, run collaborations in one place, and see clicks and sales per creator while the campaign is live.
Book a demoCreate accountMake Influence
Apply to campaigns from brands that are actively looking, follow your own clicks and sales, and get paid without chasing invoices.
Create creator profileMore creator guidesMake Influence
Briefs, agreed terms, tracking links and results sit together — so brands and creators see the same numbers.
See how it worksBrowse the Academy
