Yes, in most cases you can obtain a mechanical license for a cover song after it has already been released, but retroactive licensing does not erase the risk you took on during the unlicensed window, and it will not automatically restore a track that has already been taken down. The safer and cheaper path is always to license before release, since automatic licensing at the point of distribution costs the same as licensing after the fact but removes the gap where takedowns and lost royalties happen.

This is a more common situation than most independent artists admit. An artist records a cover, uploads it to a distributor that doesn’t handle licensing automatically, and either skips the licensing step entirely or assumes streaming platforms will sort it out. Weeks later, the track is flagged, pulled, or stuck in limbo. The question that follows is always the same: can this be fixed now?

What does ‘retroactive licensing’ actually mean?

Retroactive licensing means obtaining a mechanical license for a cover recording after it has already been distributed or streamed, rather than before. Under U.S. compulsory licensing rules, a cover of a previously released song is generally licensable as long as you’re not altering the fundamental character of the composition and you’re paying the required mechanical royalty to the original songwriter or their publisher.

The compulsory license mechanism itself doesn’t care whether you apply for it before or after you record — the law was written for physical records decades before streaming existed. What changed is that streaming platforms and distributors layer their own moderation and compliance checks on top of that legal framework, and those checks are increasingly automated and increasingly fast to react.

Can a takedown be reversed once a license is secured?

Sometimes, but not reliably, and not always to the same effect the track had before removal. If a platform pulls a cover for licensing reasons, getting the license in place afterward can sometimes lead to reinstatement, but the track typically loses whatever stream count, playlist placement, and algorithmic momentum it had accumulated. On some platforms, reinstatement requires a full new upload rather than restoring the old one, which means starting from zero on saves, playlist adds, and release-date-sensitive algorithmic pushes.

This is the part artists underestimate. The legal fix and the commercial fix are two different problems. You can resolve the licensing gap and still lose the momentum that made the release worth doing in the first place.

What about royalties earned during the unlicensed period?

This is where retroactive licensing gets genuinely messy. Royalties that accrued while a track was unlicensed may be held, delayed, or in some cases forfeited depending on the platform’s policy and how the licensing gap is resolved. Some distributors will not release payouts for a track until licensing status is confirmed as valid, which means an unlicensed cover can sit generating streams with no payout attached until the paperwork catches up — if it ever fully does.

Compare that to a cover distributed with automatic licensing built in from the start: royalty payouts begin flowing as normal, with no separate hold, once the release clears standard moderation and starts generating streams. Globex Music includes automatic mechanical licensing on every cover release and pays out starting from $10 USD, with no separate licensing step for the artist to manage or delay.

Does retroactive licensing cost more than licensing upfront?

Not inherently — the compulsory royalty rate is the same regardless of timing — but the administrative overhead is higher. Chasing down a license after a platform has already flagged a release often means working directly with a licensing administrator or publisher outside your distributor’s normal workflow, which can involve manual paperwork, processing delays measured in weeks rather than days, and in some cases a service fee on top of the royalty itself for expedited handling.

Compare this to the moderation timeline on a properly licensed release from the start: Globex Music’s review process is built for speed precisely because the licensing question is settled before the track ever reaches a moderation queue. A cover submitted with licensing already in place moves through review far faster than one where a platform’s compliance team has to first determine whether a license exists at all.

Why does this happen more with certain distributors than others?

Because not every distributor treats cover licensing as part of the release pipeline. Some require the artist to secure their own mechanical license separately — often through a third-party licensing service — before or after upload, and treat distribution and licensing as two unrelated transactions. TuneCore, for example, charges a per-cover licensing fee on top of its base annual plan, meaning the artist is responsible for initiating and paying for that license as a distinct step. DistroKid’s flat $44.99/year plan similarly separates licensing responsibility from the artist in some cover scenarios, depending on the release type.

This separation is exactly where retroactive situations originate. If licensing isn’t automatically bundled into the release process, it becomes an optional step that some artists skip, forget, or discover too late — usually when a platform’s compliance system catches the gap for them.

How does automatic licensing prevent this from becoming a problem at all?

By making licensing a mandatory, invisible part of the release rather than an optional add-on the artist has to remember. When mechanical licensing is handled automatically at the point of distribution — as it is with every Globex Music cover release, at $1 per single with no annual fee — there is no window in which the track is live but unlicensed, and therefore no retroactive fix to chase later.

This matters more for covers than for original music because covers are the one release type where a third party’s rights are baked into the recording from the first note. An original song only involves the artist’s own rights. A cover involves the songwriter’s rights too, and that’s precisely the layer that gets missed when licensing isn’t automatic.

What should you do if you’ve already released a cover without a license?

Move quickly to secure a compulsory mechanical license through a licensing administrator, and expect the process to take longer than a same-day fix. In the meantime, monitor the release for takedown notices rather than waiting for a notice to prompt action — platforms increasingly use automated content matching that can flag unlicensed covers within days of upload, not months.

If the track is still live and generating streams, getting the license in place as soon as possible reduces the accumulated risk, even though it won’t retroactively insure the period before the license existed. If it has already been taken down, treat reinstatement and re-upload as separate goals: secure the license first, then decide whether to push for restoration of the original listing or simply re-release cleanly once licensing is confirmed.

The bottom line

Retroactive licensing for cover songs is legally possible but commercially inefficient — it fixes the paperwork without necessarily fixing the momentum, royalty continuity, or moderation speed lost during the unlicensed window. A cover distributed with automatic mechanical licensing built in from the start avoids the question entirely, which is the entire point of designing the release pipeline that way rather than treating licensing as something the artist manages separately after the fact.

Sign up or log in to your dashboard and upload your release now

Latest from the blog

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!