Who owns the content an influencer creates for a brand?

The creator owns the copyright by default, even when you paid. Payment buys a licence to use it as agreed, not ownership of it.

This surprises a lot of brands: by default their owns the copyright to what they make, even though you paid for it. Paying for a sponsored post buys you the agreed use of that content, a licence, not ownership of it. Ownership and licensing are different things and assuming the payment transferred the copyright is one of the most common and expensive mistakes in influencer deals.

If you only need to run the content in the agreed places, a clear usage-rights licence covering the channels and the time period is enough and is what most deals use. If you genuinely need to own the content outright, to edit it freely, use it forever or stop the creator reusing it, the contract has to say so explicitly, through a copyright assignment or a work-for-hire arrangement and that broader grant is normally paid for on top. What you cannot do is assume any of it without writing it down.

Ownership is a contract decision that sits on top of a creative one: it is only worth securing content from a creator whose work and audience fit in the first place. Picking that creator is where Flinque fits, so the content you are licensing or buying is content worth having.

If you need to own it outright, write in a copyright assignment or work-for-hire. That broader grant is a separate, paid-for term.

Licence versus ownership is the distinction that trips brands up. For most campaigns a clear usage licence is all you actually need.