Updates

This document is very much alive and is continuously updated. See below in the appendixes what’s been changed. The document is getting bigger, so I’m currently considering splitting it up in smaller parts.

Table of contents

• Updates
• About this document
• How do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in public-domain
• Content
• Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?
  • Cover Song
  • Remix
  • Derivative Work / Adaptation
• Legal Definitions (Sweden, EU, US)
  • Sweden (and EU context)
  • United States
  • EU Copyright Framework
• How Much Change is Too Much?
• Licensing Requirements and Costs
• Remixes and Sampling
• Translation Rights and Foreign Language Covers
• AI-Generated Covers and Remixes
• Who Does What: Licensing Bodies
• Unofficial Remixes
• Metadata for Public Domain Works
• Appendix: Licensing Request Templates
• Appendix: Document Changelog
• References
• Files Referenced
• All Sources (Summary List)

About this document

Covering or reimagining a song can be creatively rewarding – but it also raises complex licensing questions. This guide breaks down the global licensing rules for cover songs, remixes, derivative works (including translations), and even AI-generated adaptations. I’ve been struggling with this for a long time, and more than once I felt like giving up. However, I realized it was better to gather the knowledge I already had and simply write it down. This is my first attempt at creating a structured document about music licensing.

How do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in “Public Domain”?

A common question among music creators is whether the material they build on is public domain or still protected by copyright. Sometimes, this question is not asked due to lack of awareness or simply because people have not familiarised themselves with copyright facts..

There is a general rule that copyright applies for 70 years after the death of the author. After that the work becomes public domain. This means that a lot of classical music can be recreated freely without stepping on anyones toes. The exception is modern recordings or derivative works of those pieces which can still be copyrighted. This is why fingerprinting detection can be a bad idea when distributing music.

To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests. To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests.

In the bottom of this page, there’s an addon of how you use metadata on public domain music, when publishing them.

Click here to open it! It is available from the ChatGPT Store!

Content

This is the result of deep research and many months of digging manually in global licensing documents. I have also manually reviewed material from OpenAI to ensure that it is primarily written by me, in my own tone. My goal has been to cover:

• Remixes.
• Covers.
• Derivative clearances.
• Legal definitions under Swedish, EU, and US law – since rules differ across countries.
• Real-world examples of what is (and isn’t) allowed.
• Issues with AI music (the pitfalls and misconceptions), as AI creators often believe they can release tracks just because they rearranged a melody from their favorite cover.
• Typical licensing costs, with an overview of key organizations.
• An appendix including email templates for contacting publishers and rights societies when permission is needed.

Whether you’re an artist planning a cover release or a label navigating remix rights, this article is meant to clarify the steps required to stay legal while making music.

Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?

På svenska motsvarar detta ungefär: cover = “coverlåt“ eller “nyinspelning“, remix = “remix“ och derivative work/adaptation = “bearbetning“ eller “anpassning“.

Cover Song

A cover is a new performance or recording of an existing song without materially changing the melody or lyrics. In other words, I sing or play someone else’s song in my own style. A true cover keeps the original composition intact – same lyrics, same fundamental melody – just a different performer. I might change the key, tempo, instrumentation, or vocal style (my “own interpretation”), but I do not alter the core musical work. For example, a rock band performing a faithful version of an ABBA pop song is a cover. Legally, a cover requires a mechanical license (permission to reproduce and distribute the composition), but not the original artist’s direct consent. As long as the song has been officially released by the original artist, others can usually cover it by paying royalties – no need to ask the songwriter personally each time.

Important note: For streaming-only covers, licensing is already handled through blanket agreements between streaming platforms and collecting societies – the platforms themselves report and pay the relevant royalties (Buma/Stemra – From Play to Pay, CMRRA – Online Licensing FAQ, The MLC – How it Works). As an artist, you don’t need to obtain additional licenses beyond correctly marking your track as a cover with your distributor (DistroKid – Uploading Cover Songs). However, it is crucial not to translate the lyrics or make substantial rearrangements that change the character of the composition – translations and material alterations are derivative works that require the rights holder’s permission (17 U.S.C. §101 – Derivative Work, Swedish Copyright Act 1960:729 §§2, 4 via WIPO). If you plan downloads or physical releases, a separate mechanical license is required per territory (e.g., U.S. compulsory license; Nordic mechanicals via NCB) (U.S. Copyright Office Circular 73, NCB – Recording music). Distributors like DistroKid and Soundrop can facilitate U.S. cover licensing via HFA/compulsory mechanisms, but that coverage is U.S.-specific (DistroKid – Uploading Cover Songs, Soundrop – What We Cover). Outside the U.S., these services do not automatically license covers on your behalf; running streaming-only distribution is therefore the simplest compliant path globally because platforms hold the necessary online licenses with local CMOs (Buma/Stemra, CMRRA).

Remix

A remix involves taking an existing sound recording and modifying it – for instance, adding new beats, effects, or rearranging elements of the original recording. Unlike a cover, a remix uses the original audio (or parts of it) from the song’s master recording. For example, a DJ remix of a hit track might sample the original vocals and add a new EDM backing. Legally, remixes are more complicated because I am using someone’s recording (the master) and potentially altering the composition. There is no automatic “remix license” like there is for covers – I need permission from the recording owner (typically the record label) to use the master, and often also from the publisher or songwriter if the composition itself is substantially changed. In practice, official remixes are usually commissioned or explicitly agreed with the rights holders. Unofficial remixes or mashups, if posted without permission, can infringe both the recording copyright and the underlying composition. In short: a remix requires clearance of the master and, in some cases, a derivative work license for the composition since I am transforming the original song.

Derivative Work / Adaptation

A derivative work is a new creation “based upon one or more preexisting works” by transforming or adapting them. In music, this means anything that changes the original song’s fundamental lyrics or melody – translations, parody lyrics, new arrangements, or sampling portions into a new piece. The line between a simple cover and a derivative adaptation lies in the level of change to the original work. For example:

• Translating the lyrics into another language.
• Writing new lyrics to the same melody.
• Substantially changing the genre or adding new musical sections.
• Sampling a riff to base a new song on.

All of these create a derivative work rather than a straight cover. Legally, the original copyright owner’s permission is required to make or release derivative works. Unlike covers, derivatives are not covered by compulsory cover licenses or standard mechanical licensing – they need a specific agreement with the copyright owner. In many jurisdictions, this permission must be explicit and in writing. I will later dive deeper into each type of derivative (translations, arrangements, etc.) and examine how much change is enough to “cross the line.”

So…

• Cover = same song, new performer.
• Remix = original recording altered.
• Derivative/Adaptation = underlying song changed in a new way.

Each category carries different licensing rules and hurdles that must be navigated carefully. Using AI makes no difference – the same rules apply. There may, however, be certain exceptions depending on jurisdiction and context.

Legal Definitions (Sweden, EU, US): What the Law Says

Copyright laws in different countries converge on one core principle: the songwriter or rights holder controls adaptations of their work. Performing or reproducing a song (even in a cover) implicates the composer’s rights, and altering the song (derivative works) adds another layer of rights. Here is how Swedish, EU, and U.S. law frame this issue:

Sweden (and EU context)

Under the Swedish Copyright Act, the author’s exclusive rights include the right to make the work available “in original or changed form, in translation or adaptation.” (§2 and §4). Swedish law explicitly states that if I translate or bearbeta (adapt/arrange) a protected work, I gain copyright in the new version, but I may not use it in a way that conflicts with the original author’s rights. In other words, I own my contribution, but I must have permission from the original rights holder to publish or exploit the adaptation. This is rooted in the Berne Convention, which Sweden and all EU countries follow.

Swedish law also introduces the concept of fri anslutning (“free adaptation”). If someone creates a truly independent work merely inspired by another, without copying protected expression, then the new work is not considered a derivative and does not require permission. But this bar is extremely high – small changes won’t qualify. In practice, any recognizable use of melody or lyrics from a protected song will be treated as a bearbetning (adaptation) requiring a license. In short: Swedish/EU law protects covers (mere performances) through mechanical licensing, while translations and new arrangements are treated as adaptations requiring the author’s consent.

United States

U.S. Copyright law grants authors control over derivative works. According to 17 U.S.C. §101, a derivative work is a creation based on one or more existing works, including translations and musical arrangements. 17 U.S.C. §103 clarifies that copyright in a derivative extends only to the new material added and does not override the original copyright. Importantly, if a derivative is made without permission, the new material may not be protected at all. For example, an unauthorized translation cannot be copyrighted by the translator because it unlawfully uses the original.

The U.S. has a compulsory licensing system for audio-only covers once a song has been released. This allows anyone to record a cover by paying the statutory mechanical royalty and meeting requirements. However, the license does not allow changes to the “basic melody or fundamental character” of the work – so translations or other adaptations are excluded. Covers can be licensed this way, but derivatives require direct permission. In addition, U.S. law grants performers a separate “right of publicity” in their voice/likeness, which is relevant for AI voice cloning.

EU Copyright Framework

The EU aligns with the Berne Convention’s adaptation rules. The EU InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC) doesn’t spell out “adaptation” in the same way, but member states uniformly require permission for adaptations. For example, Germany’s copyright law and France’s Code of Intellectual Property both explicitly grant authors rights over adaptations and arrangements. The EU has no equivalent of the U.S. cover license statute. Instead, mechanical reproduction rights are managed collectively. In practice, pressing a CD cover requires contacting local mechanical rights societies (NCB in the Nordics, MCPS in the UK, GEMA in Germany) to pay fees.

EU countries also recognize moral rights, allowing authors to object to derogatory distortions of their works. An extreme remix or parody could, in some countries, violate these moral rights. However, there are exceptions: many EU states recognize a parody exception, allowing parody without permission, and some countries allow limited sampling or quotation rights. Still, the general rule is clear: if I adapt lyrics or melody in the EU, I need a license from the copyright owner. Using a recording for a remix also requires permission from the producer/label, since EU law grants them exclusive rights in sound recordings.

So…

• Sweden/EU: Covers are handled by mechanical licenses. Translations and adaptations require the original author’s explicit consent. “Free adaptation” exists but is a rare exception.
• U.S.: Covers can be made via compulsory licensing, but translations or other changes require permission. Derivatives made without authorization may lose protection entirely. The right of publicity applies to voices and likenesses, including AI clones.
• EU: No statutory cover license. Adaptations need approval, and moral rights play a larger role. Collective societies manage mechanicals.

Together, these frameworks agree: covers are usually licensable with standard processes, while remixes and derivatives require explicit permissions. The use of AI does not change this – the same rules apply, although some jurisdictions are beginning to add specific transparency or voice-rights exceptions.

How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)

A key question musicians often ask is: “If I change the song a little, is it still just a cover or do I now need a new license?”. The line between a legal cover and an infringing adaptation can be subtle. I’ll try to explain it for you.

Covers according to STIM (the Swedish collecting society)

29 september 2025, I made a call to STIM, to clarify how exact a cover needs to be to be considered a cover. In practice, a cover is only recognised as such when it remains extremely close to the original. Even changes that may look minor – such as shifting genre, tempo, language or key – risk being classified as a bearbetning (adaptation) under Swedish law. STIM also emphasises that they can help creators contact the rightsholders or publishers if there is doubt – as long as the artist is connected to STIM, this is quite easy to make progress with. Their U.S. counterparts are BMI and ASCAP, so trying something else (or bigger, I.E. not swedish artists) could work if you ask STIM, but the best way to achieve this is to contact them separately.

Performing in a different style or key

Simply changing the arrangement or style in performance – say, doing an acoustic ballad version of a dance song – is still a cover, not a new composition. Minor musical changes for interpretation are generally allowed under cover licenses. U.S. law explicitly permits making a musical arrangement to suit your style under a cover license, as long as you don’t change the basic melody or character of the song. Examples: speeding up a slow song, switching male to female vocals, transposing the key, altering instrumentation. These remain legal covers since the underlying composition stays intact.

Shortening or looping sections

Cutting a verse for length or repeating a chorus is usually fine as a cover. These are minor edits in arrangement. You’re not adding new lyrics or melodies, just adjusting the structure. This does not create a derivative work. However, if you chop up someone’s actual recording into a rearranged mashup, you move into remix territory, which requires permission.

Translation of the lyrics

The moment you translate lyrics into another language, the song becomes a derivative work in almost all jurisdictions. A Spanish version of an English song, for example, is a lyrical adaptation. Legally this requires publisher approval. Swedish law treats translations (översättning) as protected adaptations needing consent, and U.S. law (§101) does the same. Recording a translation without permission can trigger infringement claims.

Adding new verses or changing lyrics

Changing lyrics in any substantive way – adding your own verses, rewriting sections, or making parody lyrics – creates a derivative work. This goes beyond cover licensing. Even if the melody is unchanged, new lyrics = new content = permission required. Exceptions might apply in cases of parody or satire under fair use (U.S.) or parody exceptions (EU), but those are narrow.

Mashups and medleys

Medleys (stitching songs together) or mashups (combining multiple songs simultaneously) are usually treated as derivative works. They are not simple covers. U.S. law clarified in the Music Modernization Act (2018) that medleys cannot be distributed under compulsory licensing – each component must be licensed separately. Releasing a Disney medley or a mashup of pop hits requires clearance from all involved publishers.

Remixing with samples or stems

If your “cover” uses any audio from the original master recording – sampling a riff, using a cappella stems, looping parts of the track – you’ve entered remix territory. This requires a master use license from the label at minimum, and often permission from the publisher too if the composition is altered. Example: A hip-hop track that takes a chorus sample and builds new rap verses around it is both a sample-based remix and a derivative work, requiring clearance of both master and composition rights.

Parody and satire

Parody occupies a special category. In the U.S., true parody that comments on or critiques the original may qualify as fair use (see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). In the EU, several states also have parody exceptions. But outside those cases, changing lyrics for humor usually requires permission. There is no such thing as a “parody license” – if it isn’t protected under parody exceptions, it’s infringement. Weird Al Yankovic’s parodies are famous examples – legally he could rely on fair use, but he still seeks permission as a courtesy.

In Essence

A cover becomes a derivative work when you alter the original song’s lyrics or melody in a significant way. Performing the song as written, with minor stylistic changes, stays within cover licensing. Going further – translations, new lyrics, sampling, heavy rearrangements – crosses into adaptation and requires explicit permission.

Note on AI

Using AI tools to modify or reinterpret songs does not alter the legal boundaries. If the AI-generated version includes translations, new lyrics, or sampled stems, it is subject to the same derivative and remix rules. The law evaluates the output, not the tool, so AI is no shortcut around licensing requirements.

Licensing Requirements and Costs

Now that we know what category our use falls into, what licenses do we actually need to legally release the music, and what will it cost? This section provides an overview of the key music licenses for covers, remixes, and derivatives, typical royalty rates or fees, and how different distributors handle licensing in various regions.

Mechanical Licenses for Covers

Whenever you record and distribute a cover song, you need a mechanical license for the composition. This gives you the right to reproduce and distribute the musical work (notes and lyrics) in your new recording. It applies to physical formats (CDs, vinyl), digital downloads, and interactive streams.

United States (Compulsory Mechanical License): Once a song has been released, anyone may cover it by obtaining a mechanical license – either directly from the publisher or via the compulsory process under 17 U.S.C. §115. The compulsory license means you don’t need the publisher’s express permission as long as you: file notice, pay the statutory royalty, and do not alter the fundamental character of the song. The U.S. statutory rate (2024) is about 12¢ per copy for songs ≤5 minutes, or 2.31¢ per minute for longer works. Streaming services handle mechanical royalties via the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). Distributors like DistroKid ($12/yr per cover) or Soundrop ($0.99 one-time fee) offer simplified cover licensing. Agencies like Easy Song Licensing or HFA’s Songfile also provide licenses (~$15–$20 per track).

Sweden & EU: There is no statutory license; instead, collective societies manage mechanical rights. In Sweden and the Nordics, NCB (Nordisk Copyright Bureau) administers mechanicals. In the UK, MCPS handles them, while Germany uses GEMA. Fees are typically calculated as a percentage (about 8–9% of the wholesale price). For streaming, platforms often pay mechanicals under blanket licenses with societies, so as an independent artist you may not need to handle it directly unless you sell downloads or physicals yourself. Distributors often report usage automatically. The cost is broadly equivalent to U.S. rates (roughly 8–10% of sales value).

Territory Considerations: Mechanical licenses are territorial. A U.S. license only covers U.S. usage. If you distribute globally, you need clearance in each region. Many distributors coordinate with societies or use blanket licenses, but for physical CDs sold abroad you must clear locally (often via the pressing plant). Easy Song Licensing offers international licensing services. Soundrop licenses cover U.S. only. DistroKid and CD Baby typically cover multiple territories by reporting to societies worldwide.

Comparison Table

License Type	What is Licensed	How to Obtain	Typical Cost	Territories
Mechanical License (cover, unchanged composition)	The composition (music & lyrics). Right to record and distribute your own version.	US: via HFA Songfile, MLC (streams), or distributor’s service. EU: via societies (NCB, MCPS, GEMA).	US: Statutory ~12¢ per copy, or distributor fee ($12/yr, $0.99 track, etc.). EU: ~8–9% of wholesale.	U.S. license covers U.S. only. Must clear internationally via societies or services.
Master Use License (remix/sample original audio)	The original sound recording.	Must contact the label/master owner directly. Negotiated case-by-case.	No set rate. Small samples may be cheap; big ones tens of thousands.	Territorial or worldwide, depending on agreement.
Derivative Work License (adapt composition – translation, new lyrics, arrangement)	Altered composition (translation, parody, added melody).	Request permission from publisher. Usually requires written agreement and approval of lyrics/arrangement.	Negotiated. Often no upfront fee, but royalties split with original writer.	Territorial or worldwide depending on contract.

Note on AI

Using AI does not remove these requirements. If the output is a cover, remix, or derivative work, the same licenses apply. Some rights holders are beginning to add AI-specific clauses (e.g. disclosure of AI use or bans on cloned voices), but fundamentally, licensing obligations are identical.

Remixes and Sampling: Clearing Master and Composition Rights

If you are creating a remix, mashup, or any new track that uses pre-existing audio from someone else’s recording, you have two layers of copyright to think about: the sound recording and the musical work.

Master (Sound Recording) Rights

The owner of the sound recording (usually the record label or the independent artist who recorded it) has the exclusive right to license remixes, samples, and other uses of that recording. There is no compulsory license for using an existing recording – you must obtain a Master Use License directly. For example, remixing Ariana Grande’s studio track requires her label’s permission to use the vocals/instrumental. Labels often commission official remixes or refuse permission for unofficial ones. Some provide stems for remix contests (e.g. non-commercial use on SoundCloud), but this is case by case.

Legally, even a short sample without permission is infringement (in the U.S. since Bridgeport courts have rejected a broad de minimis rule). In Europe, limited quotation exceptions exist but are narrow. Costs vary: from free/non-commercial permissions, to hundreds or thousands of dollars plus royalties for commercial use. To clear a master: identify the owner (via liner notes or databases like Discogs), then send a request describing your remix and intended release.

Composition Rights in Remixes

If your remix doesn’t change the underlying song’s structure or lyrics, you usually only need to ensure mechanical royalties are paid (as with covers). Example: a dance remix that loops the chorus and adds beats still uses the original composition – songwriters are paid via mechanicals. But if you add new lyrics, melodies, or make extensive structural changes, it becomes a derivative work, requiring the publisher’s permission (like a translation would). Mashups are even trickier: blending two compositions (vocals from Song A over instrumental of Song B) requires permission from both publishers. Services like Soundrop stress that mashups are not covered under cover licenses.

In summary: a remix requires clearing the master recording and ensuring the composition is licensed (mechanicals at minimum, derivative license if changed). Distributors (DistroKid, CD Baby, etc.) will ask if your track contains samples – they will not clear it for you and may block unlicensed remixes. Soundrop explicitly says: “cover song licensing does not extend to sampling and remixing work from other artists… Direct permission from both the composition owner and the sound recording owner… is required” (Soundrop FAQ).

Translation Rights and Foreign Language Covers

Translations are derivative works. A lyrics translation is a creative adaptation, not a mere performance. The original lyricist retains the exclusive right to authorize translations. Publishing a translation without permission is infringement.

• U.S. law: As explained on Avvo, you cannot legally translate lyrics without permission from the rights holder. Compulsory licenses do not cover lyric translations (Soundrop).
• Swedish law: Treats translations (“översättning”) as adaptations requiring consent (Lawline, Riksdagen).

How to get permission: Contact the publisher. In Sweden, STIM can help identify them. Publishers may require you to provide the translated lyrics for approval. They typically insist that original writers receive credit, and may ask that the new lyrics’ copyright be assigned or shared. Often, no large upfront fee is involved – you simply pay mechanicals and share royalties.

Alternatives: If the song is public domain (author died over 70 years ago), you can freely translate it. Beware of copyrighted existing translations – best to work from the original text.

Example: You want to release a Spanish version of an English pop song. Steps: (1) Identify publisher (via ASCAP/BMI or STIM databases). (2) Request permission with details (title, writers, language, release format). (3) Provide draft translation. (4) Await approval. (5) Once licensed, record and release with proper credits.

AI-Generated Covers and Remixes – New Legal Challenges

The rise of AI-generated music introduces overlapping copyright and personality rights issues:

Copyright Infringement

AI outputs using copyrighted compositions or recordings without license = infringement. Using AI to extract vocals and remix them is legally equivalent to sampling. Outputs that replicate training data may also infringe. Bottom line: AI doesn’t bypass licensing (iMusician).

Right of Publicity (Voice & Likeness)

AI voice cloning raises major concerns. Using a distinctive voice (e.g. Elvis Presley, Ariana Grande) without consent may violate publicity/personality rights. U.S. states regulate this differently. Tennessee’s new ELVIS Act (2024) explicitly prohibits AI use of a person’s “name, image, or voice” without consent for commercial purposes (MSBA, iMusician). California and New York are considering similar laws.

EU AI Act

The EU AI Act (2023–24) introduces transparency rules: all AI-generated deepfake audio, images, or video must be clearly labeled as such (MusicTech, iMusician). It does not override copyright, but requires disclosure to prevent deception.

Copyright Ownership of AI Outputs

If the AI output is original and shaped by human creative input, the human prompter may hold copyright. Purely machine-generated works with no human input may lack protection in many jurisdictions.

Example: An AI model mimics Kanye West’s voice to “cover” a Beatles song. Legal layers:

• Beatles composition still requires a mechanical license.
• No Beatles recording is used (synthesized), so no master clearance.
• Kanye’s voice clone likely violates his right of publicity (and possibly the ELVIS Act if in Tennessee).

So…

AI-generated covers/remixes must follow the same licensing rules as human-made ones: mechanical licenses for songs, master licenses for recordings, publisher approval for adaptations. Voice cloning adds a publicity rights layer – increasingly protected by new laws like Tennessee’s ELVIS Act. Transparency laws like the EU AI Act add further obligations for disclosure.

---

Who Does What: Music Licensing Bodies and Societies Directory

Navigating music rights often means dealing with various organizations. Here’s a directory of key licensing organizations and collecting societies worldwide, and what they do:

STIM (Sweden)

STIM (Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå) is Sweden’s collecting society for songwriters, composers, and publishers. It administers public performance and broadcasting rights – licensing music on radio, TV, concerts, streaming, etc., and pays royalties to authors. STIM also co-owns NCB, which handles mechanical licensing. If you perform a cover in Sweden, STIM collects and pays the songwriter’s share from streams or live plays.

NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau)

NCB covers the Nordics and Baltics, managing mechanical reproduction rights. It’s co-owned by STIM (Sweden), KODA (Denmark), Teosto (Finland), TONO (Norway), and STEF (Iceland). Example: pressing 500 CDs in Sweden with covers requires applying via NCB’s portal, declaring copies and price, then paying the calculated fee.

PRS for Music (UK)

PRS for Music combines PRS (performance rights) and MCPS (mechanical rights). PRS licenses live performance, broadcasts, and streaming. MCPS licenses recordings (CDs, vinyl, downloads). Typical UK mechanical rate: 8.5% of wholesale price (Sentric). Cover artists pressing records must pay MCPS. PRS covers venues’ blanket licenses for performances.

ICE (EU multi-territory)

ICE is a hub formed by PRS, STIM, and GEMA to license multi-territorial online rights. Platforms like Spotify obtain ICE Core licenses for performance + mechanicals across Europe. Artists don’t deal directly with ICE – but their works are licensed through it if they’re PRS/STIM/GEMA members.

GEMA (Germany)

GEMA manages both performance and mechanical rights in Germany. It represents over 70,000 members. GEMA famously clashed with YouTube in the 2010s, blocking videos. For covers released in Germany, GEMA ensures royalties flow to songwriters. Bars and venues also pay GEMA blanket fees to allow performances.

SACEM (France)

SACEM licenses performances and reproductions in France. SDRM (managed by SACEM) covers mechanicals. Cover artists pressing CDs in France must declare and pay SACEM/SDRM. Streaming platforms already have SACEM agreements.

HFA (Harry Fox Agency, USA)

HFA specializes in mechanical rights in the U.S. Publishers authorize HFA to license and collect royalties. Their Songfile tool lets artists buy mechanical licenses for covers (e.g., 500 downloads). Rates follow U.S. statutory levels. Since the Music Modernization Act, streaming mechanicals moved to The MLC, but HFA still handles downloads/physicals.

The MLC (USA)

The Mechanical Licensing Collective (launched 2021) issues blanket licenses for digital streaming/downloads under the Music Modernization Act. Platforms like Spotify report usage and pay MLC, which pays publishers/songwriters. Cover artists don’t apply directly – distributors and services handle it. Songwriters must register with MLC to receive royalties.

SoundExchange (USA)

SoundExchange collects and distributes U.S. digital performance royalties for sound recordings (non-interactive streams like Pandora radio, SiriusXM). It pays 50% to the label, 45% to the featured artist, 5% to session musicians. Cover artists who own their masters should register to claim their share.

ASCAP / BMI (USA PROs)

ASCAP and BMI are U.S. Performance Rights Organizations, licensing public performance rights (radio, live, streaming, restaurants). Cover artists don’t clear these rights – venues or platforms do via blanket licenses. Songwriters register with ASCAP/BMI to collect performance royalties worldwide. SESAC and GMR are smaller U.S. PROs.

---

So…

• STIM/NCB (Nordics): Handle performance + mechanicals locally.
• PRS/MCPS (UK): PRS for performance, MCPS for mechanicals.
• ICE (EU): Hub for multi-territorial online licenses.
• GEMA (Germany) / SACEM (France): National societies managing both rights.
• HFA/MLC (USA): HFA for downloads/physicals, MLC for digital streams.
• SoundExchange (USA): Pays artists/labels for digital sound recording use.
• ASCAP/BMI (USA): Songwriter performance royalties.

Together, these organizations ensure royalties flow to the right holders for covers, remixes, and adaptations across regions.

---

Releasing cover songs or creative reworks can be a fantastic way to engage audiences and pay homage to influences – but it must be done with respect for the original creators’ rights. Copyright law provides avenues (like mechanical licenses) to make covers relatively easy to do legally, while also protecting creators by requiring permission for more transformative derivatives. In today’s landscape, with global distribution and AI technology in the mix, it’s more important than ever to navigate these rules diligently. Always determine what category your music use falls into – cover, remix, adaptation, etc. – and follow the appropriate licensing steps. When in doubt, seek advice from the music publisher or a licensing professional. Fortunately, services and societies exist to help independent musicians with these tasks, from Easy Song Licensing for clearance to PRS/ASCAP for royalty collection.

By understanding the differences between a legal cover and an infringing derivative, and by utilizing the proper channels to license and credit original artists, you can release music with peace of mind and ensure that everyone gets their fair share – including you, as you transform old songs into something new.

Below, we provide an appendix with practical templates for reaching out to rights holders and agencies when you need permissions for translations, remixes, or physical releases.

---

Unofficial Remixes – Why They Seem Allowed, and Why They Actually Aren’t

Unofficial remixes create a common trap for producers: they look allowed because they often stay online for long periods without complaint. But the lack of a takedown does not mean the remix is legally permitted. Here is a clear explanation of why this happens, what the risks are, and what is actually allowed.

Why Unofficial Remixes Sometimes Stay Online

Platforms like SoundCloud, YouTube, Instagram and TikTok rely heavily on fingerprinting and rights holder enforcement. That means:

• If the fingerprinting system does not recognise your remix,
• Or the rights holder does not actively monitor that specific song,

…your remix may remain online for months or even years. This is why many creators believe unofficial remixes are “fine”. In reality, the remix has simply not been discovered yet.

Why This Is Misleading

The moment your remix contains any part of the original master (vocals, stems, samples, instrumental segments), you are using copyrighted audio. Without permission from the rights holder, it is not licensed, regardless of how long it stays online.

The platform may allow it temporarily, but:

• A single identification match can trigger instant takedown.
• A strict rights holder can issue repeated removals.
• In some cases, the platform may restrict your uploads or account.

Nothing about an unofficial remix staying online means it is legally safe.

Is It Ever Allowed to Upload Unofficial Remixes?

Whether unofficial remixes are allowed depends on two separate questions:

1. Legally allowed?

No.
Using the master recording without permission always requires a license — there is no automatic remix license.

2. Practically tolerated?

Sometimes.
If the system does not flag it, and the rights holder ignores it, the upload may remain available.

This tolerance is not a right — it is simply a lack of detection.

The “Death Sentence” Reality

Some rights holders police their catalog extremely aggressively. Major labels in particular will:

• Block the upload immediately.
• Remove the track on sight.
• Issue repeat takedowns.

In those cases, an unofficial remix is effectively a death sentence for upload — it will not survive.

Other rights holders barely monitor their catalog at all, meaning the exact same type of remix may survive for years.

This inconsistency is why producers get confused.

Why Detection Isn’t Random

It may feel random, but it isn’t. Detection depends on:

• The strength of the fingerprint match.
• Whether the song is in the platform’s reference database.
• How strict the rights holder is.
• Whether the metadata has been updated recently.
• Whether you used a part of the song that fingerprints easily (vocals are almost always caught).

So while the experience is random, the reason is not.

What You Are Allowed To Do

You are legally safe if:

• You create a cover without using any audio from the original master.
• You do not translate lyrics or make derivative adaptations without permission.
• You distribute through platforms that already handle mechanical royalties.

Covers fall under mechanical licensing (streaming platforms manage this by default).

But:

• Using stems = requires master clearance.
• Sampling = requires master + publisher clearance.
• Translating or rewriting lyrics = derivative, requires permission.

Summary

Unofficial remixes often appear “safe” because they simply haven’t been caught yet. But legally:

• All remixes that use the original recording require licensing.
• Detection varies depending on rights holder strictness and fingerprinting.
• A remix surviving online does not imply permission.

In short: unofficial remixes are tolerated until they aren’t – and the moment a rights holder cares, the track can disappear instantly.

If you intend to release a remix properly, you need explicit permission from the master owner (label/artist) and possibly the publisher.

---

How Metadata for Public Domain Works (Classical Repertoire)

Public domain does not mean that metadata can be assigned freely. The underlying composition may be free to use, but distributors and streaming platforms still expect accurate, non‑misleading credits. This section explains how to correctly tag recordings of public domain works (such as Liszt, Bach, Mozart) on platforms like DistroKid, Spotify, Apple Music, and others.

1. Work vs Recording vs Arrangement

When releasing a recording of a public domain piece, three separate layers are involved:

1. The work (composition)
   The melody, harmony, and structure — for example, “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2” by Franz Liszt. The copyright for the composition has expired, placing it in the public domain.
2. The arrangement or adaptation
   Any added structure, reharmonisation, new instrumentation, sound design, extended sections, or orchestration. These elements may constitute a new protectable adaptation, provided it does not copy a modern copyrighted edition or arrangement.
3. The sound recording (master)
   The audio file you distribute. This is always a new copyright‑protected work.

Only the composition layer (1) is public domain. Your arrangement (2) and your recording (3) are newly protected works.

2. Track Titles for Public Domain Works

It is both correct and expected to use the original work title when releasing classical or public domain repertoire. Examples include:

• “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in C‑sharp minor”
• “Liebestraum No. 3”
• “Nocturne in E‑flat major, Op. 9 No. 2”

Listeners search by the canonical title and composer, not by alternative or clever new names.

To clarify your version, you may optionally add a descriptive tag:

• “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Tornevall Remix)”
• “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 — Liszt, arr. Tornevall”
• “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Electronic Orchestral Version)”

What matters is not presenting your recording as a historical original or as a newly authored Liszt composition.

3. Main Artist vs Composer Credits

Modern distributors follow a straightforward rule:

• Primary artist = the performer(s) heard on the recording.
• Composer = the creator of the underlying musical work.

For public domain recordings, this means:

• Primary artist: your artist name (e.g., “Tornevalls Sonic Syndicate”, “Tornevalls Neural Ensemble”).
• Composer / songwriter: Franz Liszt.

Public domain composers should not be listed as primary or featured artists. They do not perform on the recording, and assigning them as artists may be flagged as misleading metadata. It also unnecessarily consumes additional artist slots on some distributors.

4. DistroKid and Public Domain Metadata

DistroKid (and similar distributors) distinguish between:

1. Covers or remixes of modern tracks — where the original artist may need to appear as primary artist when the master recording is used.
2. Recordings of public domain works — where the composer should be credited only in the composer field.

For public domain recordings:

• Primary artist: your artist name.
• Additional artists (feat/remixer/producer): used only for people who actively participate in the recording.
• Composer: Franz Liszt, Bach, Mozart, etc.
• Arranger / Adaptor: add yourself if the distributor provides such a field.

Do not spend an additional DistroKid artist slot on “Franz Liszt” as a primary or featured artist. He is the composer, not a performer.

5. When Is It a Remix vs a New Recording?

The term “remix” is often used casually, but distributors use a strict definition.

5.1. New Recording of a Public Domain Work

Example: You program and record the entire “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2” using your own instruments, synths, and sound design, without using any other artist’s recording.

• Legally: a new recording of a public domain composition.
• Metadata:
  • Title: e.g., “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Tornevall Version)”
  • Primary artist: you
  • Composer: Franz Liszt
  • Arranger: you (if applicable)

In many cases, this is better described as a new arrangement or version than a “remix”, because no copyrighted master has been used.

5.2. Remix of a Modern Master (Not Public Domain)

Example: You receive stems from a modern artist and create “Artist – Song Title (Tornevall Remix)”.

• Legally: this uses the original master recording and requires approval from the master owner (label/artist) and often the publisher.
• Metadata (DistroKid logic):
  • Primary artist: the original artist
  • Remixer: your name (set as “Remixer” in metadata)
  • Composer: the original songwriters

This is not the same situation as a public domain recording.

6. Credit Examples

Example A – Straight Classical Recording

• Track title: “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in C‑sharp minor”
• Primary artist: “Tornevalls Neural Ensemble”
• Composer: “Franz Liszt”
• Arranger: left empty if following an older public domain edition closely.

Example B – Electronic Adaptation of a Public Domain Work

• Track title: “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Electronic Orchestral Remix)”
• Primary artist: “Tornevalls Sonic Syndicate”
• Composer: “Franz Liszt”
• Arranger / Adaptor: “Thomas Tornevall”
• Genre: “Electronic”, “House”, “Drum & Bass”, etc.

Distributor forms:

• Do not mark the track as a “cover” of a modern artist — the composition is public domain and has no master owner.
• Do not use the “remix” submission form unless a modern master is actually used.

7. Quick Checklist for Public Domain Metadata

When releasing music based on public domain works, verify:

1. Is the work truly public domain?
   Confirm the composer and year of death. Once 70 years have passed (EU/Sweden), the composition is normally free.
2. Are you using a modern edition or arrangement?
   Modern editions may still be copyrighted. Prefer an edition that is confirmed public domain, or create your own arrangement.
3. Are you using another artist’s master recording?
   • No → it is a new recording of a public domain work.
   • Yes → it is a remix or sampling situation that requires proper licensing.
4. Is the primary artist field correct?
   Only performers or aliases who actually participate should appear as primary or featured artists.
5. Is the composer in the correct field?
   Public domain composers should appear in the composer/songwriter field — never as performing artists.
6. Is the title clear and non‑misleading?
   You may use the original title. When appropriate, add a version tag (“Remix”, “EDM Version”, “Tornevall Edit”, etc.).

By following this structure, you can release recordings and adaptations of public domain works cleanly — without misleading credits, without unnecessary metadata conflicts, and without wasting distributor artist slots.

---

Appendix: Licensing Request Templates

Go here instead!

Appendix: Document Changelog

• 2025-09-10: Updated text about covers regarding streaming-only covers, that have some exceptions for which you eventually don’t need any licensing due to its form.
• 2025-09-29: Called STIM in Sweden, to clarify how covers needs to be structure to be considered covers. This also includes tempo change, key changes and genre shifting: All those elements means adaptations and is not considered covers. More info can be found below.
• 2025-11-03: Added a link to a specialized GPT, that digs up copyright information about the tracks you want to recreate.
• 2025-11-20: Scanned the interwebz for information about
  – “Unofficial Remixes” (Added in the bottom of the page) – describing why they are still not allowed even when they are unofficial.
  – How to handle metadata on music you create in the public domain and how you tag the original artist.
  – Also considering dividing this document to make it human readable again (moved out template examples to here).

References

Guides & Overviews

• How to Release a Cover Song Legally: A Step-by-Step Guide for 2024 – Lalal.ai
• Song Licensing: What Do We Cover? – Soundrop
• Why Am I Required to Purchase My Cover Song License Through DistroKid? – DistroKid
• Do You Have to Pay for Cover Songs on DistroKid? – SoundOn
• Can I Distribute Internationally If I Use Custom Licensing? – Easy Song Licensing

Legal References

• 17 U.S.C. §101 – Definitions – Justia
• 17 U.S.C. §103 – Compilations and Derivative Works – USCode.ecfr
• Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk – Riksdagen
• Bearbetning eller ett nytt verk? – Lawline
• I have an interest in writing English language versions of foreign songs – Avvo

AI & Emerging Law

• The ELVIS Act: Tennessee Law Addresses AI’s Impact – MSBA
• AI Laws Passed by Tennessee Government and EU – iMusician
• EU AI Act Explained – MusicTech

Collecting Societies & Rights Bodies

• STIM – Wikipedia
• NCB (Nordisk Copyright Bureau) – Wikipedia
• PRS for Music / MCPS – Songtrust
• PRS and ICE Services – PRS for Music
• GEMA – Music Business Worldwide
• SACEM – Wikipedia
• HFA (Harry Fox Agency) – Wikipedia
• MLC (Mechanical Licensing Collective) – Wikipedia
• SoundExchange FAQ – SoundExchange
• ASCAP – Songtrust
• BMI – Songtrust

Royalty & Licensing Resources

• Mechanical Royalties Overview – Sentric
• Music Publishing Pay Sources (UK) – Songtrust
• Music Publishing Pay Sources (US) – Songtrust

---

Files Referenced:

• licensinfo-mall.txt – internal.

---

All Sources (Summary List)

• lalal.ai
• support.soundrop.com
• support.distrokid.com
• soundon.global
• riksdagen.se
• lawline.se
• law.justia.com
• uscode.ecfr.io
• avvo.com
• en.wikipedia.org
• sentric.com
• support.easysong.com
• msba.org
• imusician.pro
• musictech.com
• blog.songtrust.com
• prsformusic.com
• musicbusinessworldwide.com
• soundexchange.com