Advertisment

Should brands repurpose viral content on social media?

At a time when social media presences of brands have become separate unique identities, the tussle to stand out demands intense experimentation. Attempting to stay relevant, many brands repurpose viral content on social media to capture the evasive eyeballs of netizens—some of which might be unwelcome from an ethical lens.

author-image
Harshal Thakur
New Update
fce

In 2019, a short clip of a teenager sipping cranberry juice while skateboarding to Fleetwood Mac’s Dreams took the internet by storm. Within days, brands jumped in—Ocean Spray gifted the creator a brand-new truck, social media accounts rushed to recreate the trend, and even Mick Fleetwood himself joined in on the fun. It was a textbook example of how brands can embrace virality with tact, credit, and goodwill.

Contrast this with another viral phenomenon: the "Disaster Girl" meme. Originally a candid photo of a young girl smirking as a house burned down in the background, it was repurposed endlessly without her consent for over a decade. It wasn’t until she turned 21 that she finally reclaimed control—selling the image as an NFT for nearly $500,000. But for years, brands, media outlets, and content creators had used her face, humorously or commercially, without her involvement.

These two cases illustrate the best and worst sides of repurposing viral content. When done right, brands can build authentic engagement and even uplift creators. When done wrong, they risk alienating audiences, undermining trust, and—perhaps most crucially—exploiting the very creators who made the content popular in the first place.

The digital landscape is flooded with trends that come and go faster than a Snapchat streak. Brands scramble to stay relevant by piggybacking on viral moments—be it a dance, a meme, a quirky one-liner, or even an unintentional slip of the tongue caught on camera. But as easy as it is to copy, paste, and profit, the ethical implications are far murkier than most brands care to admit.

Vaibhav Wankhede and Shawn Pillai, Creative & Content Heads at Asymmetrique, highlight this dilemma: "Simply reposting someone else's viral meme with your logo is ethically questionable. Transformation is key—adding a unique twist that significantly changes the original can move you into more ethical territory. But context matters. A funny meme is one thing; using emotionally charged clips for commercial gain is another."

Neharika Manjani, Head of Digital at Yellow, notes, “Viral content, while highly accessible, often stems from deeply personal creativity or spontaneous moments captured by individuals. Brands must ensure they’re not crossing into exploitation by stripping away context or recognition.”

At what point does creative adaptation cross into exploitation? Does viral content belong to the internet at large, or do brands owe something to the original creator? And in an age where artificial intelligence (AI) can reimagine and repurpose content at breakneck speed, what new ethical pitfalls emerge?

Whose recipe is it? 

Repurposing viral content is like borrowing someone’s recipe—it’s one thing to add your seasoning, but taking credit for the whole dish? That’s where ethical alarms go off. According to Pratik Kedia, Co-Founder of Evolute Global, “The key question isn’t merely whether brands can use the content, but whether they should.”

Kalyan Kumar, Co-Founder and CEO of KlugKlug, emphasises that ethical boundaries start with obtaining explicit permission from the original content creator. “Even if the content is publicly available, its use for commercial purposes requires respect for the creator's intellectual property and acknowledgement of their effort. Beyond ethics, failing to seek permission can lead to copyright infringement and potential backlash from both the creator and the audience. Brands must also evaluate whether the viral content aligns with their values and audience expectations, as not all viral trends are suitable for every brand. The key is to ensure transparency, respect, and compliance with content rights before incorporating any viral material into campaigns.”

To ensure fairness, brands must ask themselves:

  • Who owns the content? Viral doesn’t mean free-for-all. Even widely shared clips often have identifiable creators.

  • What is the original intent? Misusing content, particularly if it holds personal, cultural, or emotional significance, can damage both creators and the brand’s reputation.

  • Is consent viable? While legal frameworks may not demand it, seeking permission from creators reflects respect and builds goodwill.

As Wankhede and Pillai emphasise, “Acknowledging the source is not just ethical; it’s good social media etiquette.”

Manjani reinforces this, stating, “Public platforms may provide access, but they do not erase the creator’s agency. Even when a license is secured, it merely satisfies legalities—it does not absolve brands of the responsibility to respect the creator’s effort.”

“Brands have a moral obligation to seek consent from content creators, even if the content is publicly available. Public availability does not equate to free usage, especially for commercial purposes. While securing a license from a platform may provide legal cover, it does not absolve brands of their moral responsibility toward the creator,” says Kumar. 

The public domain mirage 

The internet’s “public domain” is a murky concept. Just because a meme or video has gone viral doesn’t strip it of ownership rights. Brands often mistake ubiquity for permission, failing to trace the origins of the content they repurpose.

Some brands, particularly those with a substantial social media presence and an unhinged persona, often tap on viral memes/clips to generate content. These often include the proverbial brain rot content with unknown origins. In such cases, the participant in the media content might not be aware of the large-scale use of their content for monetary gains.

Swiggy, particularly Swiggy Instamart, has been known to repurpose viral audio on Instagram to make unhinged content. Similarly, Zomato and Duolingo India have made their fair share of attempts at repurposing content over time.

Recently, Instagram influencer and "Juice Pila Do, Mausambi Ka" fame Nakul Dhull accused Swiggy Instamart of running a video he’d posted on his account as a sponsored post without his permission. 

Kumar asserts, “A viral clip being widely shared or appearing to be in the 'public domain' does not automatically make it ethical for brands to repurpose it. Content that is clearly owned requires explicit permission, as it is tied to the creator's intellectual property rights. For content with ambiguous origins, brands must exercise caution and conduct due diligence to trace the source. Repurposing such content without clarity on ownership risks both ethical and legal repercussions. When in doubt, it is best to either avoid using the content or modify it substantially enough to create something original. This approach safeguards both the brand's reputation and the interests of creators.”

“Virality doesn’t mean free-for-all,” says Manjani. “While a widely shared clip might feel like it belongs to everyone, it usually has an origin—a person whose creativity or circumstances brought it to life.”

When content has ambiguous origins, brands should exercise rigorous due diligence. Manjali suggests, “If the source is unclear, brands should clearly state their intent and invite rightful owners to come forward. Transparency demonstrates a commitment to ethical use.”

Manjul Wadhwa, Founder and CEO of Anagram Media Labs, concurs. “For content with identifiable owners, the path is straightforward: seek permission, offer credit, or provide remuneration. If the source is unclear, brands should clearly state their intent and invite rightful owners to come forward.”

This approach not only ensures fairness but also fosters trust. By valuing creators, brands can build relationships that lead to meaningful collaborations instead of momentary controversy.

AI conundrum: New tools, new challenges

Enter artificial intelligence, the latest disruptor in the content landscape. AI allows brands to recreate or modify content with uncanny precision, but it also raises thorny ethical questions. From deepfakes to cultural misrepresentation, the stakes have never been higher.

Kumar warns, “The use of AI to repurpose or reimagine content introduces several ethical challenges. AI can replicate content, including scripts, imagery, or even voices, in ways that blur the lines of originality and ownership. While some degree of tweaking may technically bypass copyright issues, the ethical question of appropriating someone else’s creative essence remains. Additionally, AI-generated content risks exploiting creators’ work without due credit or compensation. As AI evolves, there is an urgent need for clearer guidelines and regulations to balance innovation with fairness.”

Manjani highlights several risks: “The ease with which AI can replicate styles, voices, or entire pieces of content raises questions about authenticity and ownership. There’s also the risk of devaluing human creativity, as AI-generated adaptations may overshadow or replace original works.”

Kedia adds, “Clear labelling of AI-generated materials is essential. Ownership and attribution in the age of AI demand careful consideration to avoid unauthorised exploitation.”

Moreover, AI-trained on biased datasets may perpetuate stereotypes or strip content of its cultural context, leading to inadvertent harm. Brands must tread carefully to ensure technology serves creativity without compromising ethics.

Practical guidelines for ethical repurposing

Navigating these challenges requires more than gut instinct. As the experts suggest, brands need a clear roadmap to ensure their use of viral content aligns with ethical standards. Kumar outlines key guidelines:

  • Seek permissions – Always obtain the original creator’s consent before using their content, even if it’s viral.
  • Respect cultural sensitivities – Ensure that the content aligns with the brand’s values and does not offend any group or community.
  • Ensure authenticity – Avoid distorting or misrepresenting the original content to suit the brand’s narrative.Credit creators – Acknowledge the creator wherever possible to maintain transparency and goodwill.
  • Assess relevance – Evaluate whether the trend resonates with the brand’s identity and audience. Not all viral content is appropriate for every brand.
  • Avoid exploitation – Viral content involving sensitive topics, personal tragedies, or minors should be handled with extra caution or avoided entirely.

As Deeptanshu J. Bansal, Founder-Director of The Brand Bee, puts it: “Ethical marketing isn’t just about rules—it’s about relationships. By showing respect for creators, brands not only protect their reputation but also contribute to a healthier creative ecosystem.”

Repurposing viral content is no longer just a creative choice; it’s a statement about a brand’s values. As audiences become more discerning, ethical lapses can tarnish even the most successful campaigns. By balancing relevance with respect, brands can turn viral trends into opportunities for genuine connection.

viral content instagram reels ownership ethical implications Repurposing