A Guide to Re-Releasing an Old Cover Song Under a New Distributor

Re-releasing an old cover song under a new distributor means taking down the existing release, submitting it fresh through the new service, and accepting a new ISRC and often a new URL for every platform. It is a well-established practice among independent artists switching distributors, but it is not a simple copy-paste move — streaming history, saved playlists, and mechanical licensing coverage all reset to some degree. Understanding what carries over and what does not is the difference between a clean switch and a self-inflicted setback.

This comes up constantly for cover artists. Someone released a cover through one service years ago, the annual renewal fee kept climbing, or the distributor’s cover licensing process was slow and expensive, and now they want to move that same track somewhere cheaper and faster. The mechanics of doing this correctly are not widely explained, so here is the full picture.

Why would you re-release a cover song at all?

The most common trigger is cost. An artist paid a recurring annual fee to keep a catalog live, and over three or five years that adds up to far more than the cover song itself ever earned. Others switch because their old distributor handled cover licensing manually, adding days or weeks of delay every time they wanted to release a new version of a song. A distributor charging $1 per single with no annual fee and automatic mechanical licensing built in changes that math enough that migrating older catalog becomes worth the disruption.

A second, less obvious trigger: some artists re-release a cover specifically to reset royalty accounting under a new payout structure, particularly if their old distributor had a high payout threshold or added extra commission on top of the base fee.

What actually happens to your old release when you switch?

Your old release goes down from every platform once you request a takedown, and it does not simply reappear at the new distributor — it gets re-uploaded as a brand-new release with a new ISRC. Streaming platforms treat the new upload as a distinct piece of catalog, not a continuation. That means:

Total stream counts do not transfer — you start again from zero on the new upload.
Existing playlist placements (editorial or algorithmic) are almost always lost, since they’re tied to the original track ID.
Saved-to-library and liked-song data from listeners on the old version does not carry to the new one.
Your artist profile itself usually stays intact if you’re using the same profile across distributors, but the individual release history for that song resets.

This is the single biggest thing artists underestimate. If a cover song has meaningful algorithmic momentum — steady saves, a spot on an editorial playlist, consistent monthly listeners — pulling it down to switch distributors can cost you more in lost momentum than you’ll save in fees. For a cover with negligible ongoing traction, the calculation flips: there’s little to lose and real ongoing cost to avoid.

Do you need a new mechanical license for the re-release?

Yes. A mechanical license is tied to a specific release, not to you as an artist, so a new upload technically requires new licensing coverage even though it’s the same recording of the same song. This is exactly the kind of step that becomes a non-issue with a distributor that automatically handles mechanical licensing on cover submissions — you’re not filing anything separately or paying a per-song licensing fee on top of your distribution cost. With Globex Music, that licensing is included in the $1 release price, so re-releasing an old cover costs the same as releasing a brand-new one.

Compare that to a distributor that charges separately for cover licensing on top of a subscription fee — under that model, migrating an entire old cover catalog gets expensive fast, since you’re paying the licensing fee again for every track even though nothing about the underlying rights has changed.

Step-by-step: how to re-release a cover song correctly

Audit what the old release is actually doing. Check monthly listeners, playlist adds, and total streams before you take it down. If a track has real ongoing traffic, weigh that against the cost you’re trying to save.
Request the takedown from your current distributor. Takedowns typically propagate across platforms within a few days to two weeks, depending on the platform — Spotify and Apple Music tend to be faster than smaller regional services.
Confirm the takedown is complete before re-uploading. Uploading the same title and artist name to a new distributor while the old version is still live on the same platform can trigger a duplicate content flag and delay moderation.
Submit through the new distributor with accurate metadata. Match the original title, songwriter credit, and featured artist fields exactly to what listeners searched for before, so you don’t fragment your own search visibility.
Let the new distributor’s automatic licensing handle mechanical rights. There’s no separate filing needed on a service that bundles this into the release fee.
Re-link the release in your bio, playlists, and social posts. Every old link to the previous version now points to a dead page, so this step is not optional if you want the re-release to actually get found.

What does the cost comparison actually look like over time?

Take a cover artist who released 10 cover songs on an annual-fee distributor and is now paying $24.99/year just to keep that catalog live, on top of per-cover licensing fees paid at upload. Over three years, that’s roughly $75 in renewal fees alone, plus whatever was paid per track in licensing. Re-releasing all 10 tracks through a $1-per-single distributor with licensing included costs $10 one time, with no renewal fee ever. Over a five-year horizon, the annual-fee model can easily cost four to five times more for the same 10-song catalog, and that gap grows every year the catalog stays live.

A distributor charging $9.95 per single plus a 9% royalty commission taken permanently, like CD Baby’s model, presents a different problem: even after you’ve paid to be on the platform, a percentage of every future royalty payout is gone forever. Re-releasing old covers under a flat $1-per-single model with no ongoing commission structure means the cost is fixed and known up front, not an open-ended tax on royalties for as long as the song stays live.

Does moderation take longer for a re-released cover than a first-time upload?

No — a re-released cover goes through the same review process as any new submission, and there’s no inherent penalty for the fact that it existed elsewhere before. Fast-moderation distributors typically clear straightforward cover submissions within one to a few business days, provided the metadata is accurate and the audio meets basic quality standards. The main thing that slows down a re-release specifically is confusion between the old and new versions still being live simultaneously, not the re-release itself.

When re-releasing is not worth it

If a cover song is earning steady royalties, holding a playlist slot, or ranking in platform search for its title, the safer move is often to simply let the old release run out its annual term (if there is one) rather than take it down mid-momentum. Re-releasing makes the most sense for catalog that has gone quiet — tracks with minimal current streams where the ongoing annual cost or commission structure is the main thing left working against you. In that situation, a clean move to a low-cost, no-renewal-fee distributor with built-in cover licensing and payouts starting from $10 turns a stagnant catalog liability into a low-maintenance asset again.