We Asked a Music Rights Lawyer: The Cover Song Questions Artists Get Wrong

Most cover song legal problems come from a handful of recurring misunderstandings, not from artists ignoring the rules entirely. To get a clearer picture of where independent musicians actually go wrong, we put together a set of the most common cover song questions and ran them past the kind of reasoning a music rights attorney would apply. The short version: the mechanical license covers less than most people assume, and the parts artists worry about least are often the parts that carry real risk.

None of this is a substitute for individual legal advice, and licensing details can vary by country. But the patterns below hold up across almost every cover song case worth examining.

Do you need permission from the original artist to release a cover?

No — and this is the single most common misconception in cover song licensing. In the United States and many other territories, once a song has been commercially released, anyone can record and distribute their own version under a mechanical license, without asking the original artist, songwriter, or label for permission. This is called a compulsory license, and it exists specifically so that cover songs don’t require case-by-case negotiation.

What you can’t skip is paying the required mechanical royalty to whoever owns the composition rights — that obligation exists regardless of whether anyone gives you a «yes.» A distributor that includes automatic mechanical licensing, like Globex Music, handles that royalty routing as part of the release process, which is why the artist never has to track down a publisher directly for a standard cover.

Can you change the lyrics or melody and call it your own song?

Not legally, and this is where a lot of artists misjudge how much creative latitude a cover license actually gives them. A compulsory mechanical license permits you to create your own arrangement — different tempo, instrumentation, genre, vocal styling — but it does not permit you to alter the fundamental melody or lyrics in a way that changes the basic character of the composition. Do that, and you’ve moved from «cover» into «derivative work,» which requires direct permission from the copyright holder that a standard license doesn’t cover.

The line isn’t always obvious, which is exactly why lawyers get asked about it so often. A stripped-down acoustic version with a reharmonized chord progression is almost always fine. Rewriting the second verse or changing the hook’s melodic line is not.

Who actually owns the master recording of a cover song?

You do. This is the part that surprises people in the opposite direction — they assume that because they don’t own the composition, they don’t own much of anything. In reality, the mechanical license only concerns the underlying song (the melody and lyrics as written). The specific recording you create — your vocal take, your instrumentation, your mix — is a master recording that you own outright, the same as if you’d written the song yourself.

That distinction matters commercially. It’s why you can distribute your cover, collect royalties tied to your recording, and license your specific version for sync placements involving your performance, even though someone else owns the composition itself.

Does a cover license cover streaming and downloads both?

Generally yes, but the scope depends on what type of mechanical license is being issued and in what territory. In the US, the compulsory mechanical license historically applied most cleanly to physical and download distribution, with streaming royalties flowing through a related but distinct mechanism established under more recent copyright law. In practice, a distributor handling licensing on your behalf resolves this at the back end — the artist doesn’t need to obtain separate permissions for each format — but it’s a reasonable thing to ask about if you’re distributing outside the standard streaming platforms, for instance through physical CDs or vinyl.

What happens if you release a cover without a license at all?

The composition owner can request a takedown, and platforms generally comply quickly since unlicensed cover distribution is a straightforward copyright violation, not a gray area. This is different from a Content ID dispute over sampling or interpolation, where ownership can be genuinely ambiguous. With covers, the compulsory licensing framework exists precisely so there’s no ambiguity: a license is available, it’s obtainable, and skipping it is a choice rather than an oversight.

The practical fix is straightforward — release through a distributor where mechanical licensing is built into the process, rather than treating it as a separate step you might get to later. Globex Music includes this automatically on every cover song release, which removes the step where most unlicensed releases actually originate: not malice, just artists not realizing licensing wasn’t automatic elsewhere.

Do you need a new license for every platform you release to?

No. A properly obtained mechanical license for a specific recording of a specific composition covers that recording across all the platforms it’s distributed to — you’re not re-licensing per platform. This is one reason distributing to 200+ platforms in a single release is not a legal complication, just a distribution one. The licensing question was already settled at the point the recording was cleared; where it’s sold or streamed afterward doesn’t reopen it.

Can songwriters refuse to let you cover their song?

Only in narrow circumstances. Compulsory mechanical licensing means a songwriter generally cannot block a cover once the original has been commercially released — this is a deliberate feature of copyright law, not a loophole. The exception is if you’re seeking a synchronization license, such as using a cover in a video, film, or advertisement — sync rights are negotiated directly and can be refused, which is a completely different licensing category from a standard audio cover release.

What actually causes legal trouble for cover artists

In practice, it’s rarely the covers themselves — it’s the edge cases: altered lyrics passed off as originals, unlicensed sync use in monetized video content, or artists assuming a license from one distributor carries over when re-releasing through another. The compulsory licensing system is unusually artist-friendly compared to most areas of copyright law. The mistakes come from treating it as either more restrictive or more permissive than it actually is.

For artists releasing primarily covers, the practical takeaway is to work with a distributor where licensing is handled automatically rather than manually per release, keep arrangements within the bounds of what a compulsory license actually permits, and treat sync use as its own separate legal question entirely.