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

Table of Contents

About the sections

Each category carries different licensing rules and hurdles that must be navigated carefully. Using AI makes no difference to the legal categories – the same rules apply – but AI tools make it easier to produce borderline or clearly infringing adaptations, so the need for good licensing hygiene is even greater.

Snabbt på svenska

Svenska motsvarigheter: cover = “coverlåt“eller “nyinspelning“, remix = “remix“och derivative work/adaptation = “bearbetning“eller “anpassning“.

Cover Songs

A cover is a new performance or recording of an existing song without materially changing the protected composition – that is, the melody and 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 – but may sound very different in production with a different performer.

In practice, a cover may:

Change tempo.
Change key to suit the singer or instruments.
Change genre or style (e.g., pop → metal, rock → tech house, EDM → acoustic ballad).
Use different instrumentation, arrangement and sound design.
Extend or shorten the track (long intros, outros, breakdowns, drops).

All of this is normally treated as an arrangement of the same song, not a new composition, as long as the recognizable melody and lyrics are still there.

For example, a rock band performing a faithful version of an ABBA pop song is a cover. A tech house producer doing a club version of a schlager song is also a cover, as long as the main melodic line and lyrics stay intact.

Legally, a cover requires a mechanical licence (permission to reproduce and distribute the composition), but not the original artist’s direct consent, provided that:

The song has been officially released by the original artist, and
You do not change the basic melody or the lyrics.

As long as those conditions are met, covers are generally licensable through existing systems rather than individual negotiation with the songwriter each time.

Streaming-only covers are usually handled via blanket agreements between streaming platforms and collecting societies. The platforms themselves report and pay the relevant royalties. As an artist, you mainly need to:

Correctly mark your track as a cover with your distributor.
Provide accurate songwriter and publisher metadata.

If you plan downloads or physical releases, you may need a separate mechanical licence per territory (e.g., U.S. compulsory licence; Nordic mechanicals via NCB). Some distributors can facilitate U.S. cover licensing, but their coverage is often territory-specific, so you still need to understand how your specific use is licensed outside the U.S.

Remixes

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 licence” in the same way as there is a cover/mechanical framework. To release a remix that uses the original recording, I usually need:song itself, and therefore require the author’s or publisher’s consent.

Permission from the recording owner (typically the record label or master rights holder) to use the master.
Permission from the publisher or songwriter if I alter the composition (for example, new structure, additional melodic sections, chopped and re-contextualised lyrics).

In practice, official remixes are usually commissioned or explicitly approved by 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, where the composition is changed, a derivative work licence for the song itself.

A remix is not a cover

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.

How about 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.

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

Detection? In short: Fingerprinting and discovering copyright infringements when you upload things without permissions.

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.

Derivative Work / Adaptation

A derivative work (adaptation/bearbetning) is a new creation “based upon one or more preexisting works” by transforming or adapting protected expression. In music, this means anything that changes the original song’s protected elements – primarily lyrics and melody – beyond what is considered a normal arrangement.

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.
Rewriting parts of the melody or adding new melodic sections that become part of the song’s identity.
Sampling a distinctive riff, hook, or vocal and building a new song around it.
Creating a parody or alternate-lyrics version that still clearly uses the original melody.

Note on genre and style:

Simply changing genre, tempo, key, or instrumentation (e.g., turning a pop song into a tech house or metal version) is usually treated as a cover/arrangement, not a derivative work, as long as the underlying melody and lyrics remain recognisably the same.
However, if a new version goes so far that it changes the fundamental character of the song – for example, heavy re-composition, new hooks replacing the original, or extensive melodic rewrites – it may cross the line into a derivative adaptation.

Legally, the original copyright owner’s permission is required to make or release derivative works. Unlike covers, derivatives are not covered by compulsory cover licences or standard mechanical licensing – they need a specific agreement with the copyright owner (often the publisher, sometimes together with the original artist/label).

In many jurisdictions, this permission must be explicit and in writing. In some countries, authors also have moral rights and may object to adaptations they consider degrading or distorted, even if the adaptation is technically licensed.

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.

Parodies 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.

To summarize:

Distributors like DistroKid/Soundrop only handle U.S. compulsory licensing and not international mechanicals.
Streaming‑only covers are normally licensed through platform blanket agreements. Artists mainly need to mark the release as a cover and provide correct metadata.
Downloads/physical formats require a mechanical licence per territory (e.g., NCB in the Nordics, compulsory licence in the U.S.).

Film & TV Dialogue in Music (quotes, lines & samples)

Why this section exists: Many artists want to drop memorable film/TV lines into tracks—either by sampling the original clip or by re‑voicing the line (human or AI). This section explains how licensing works in the EU/Sweden, when quotation exceptions may (or may not) apply, and why orphan/out‑of‑commerce rules rarely help commercial releases.

TL;DR

Dialogue/scripts = literary works. Reproducing the same words—even with a different/AI voice—typically requires permission unless a narrow quotation exception applies. (Sweden: URL ch. 1 §1).
Original film audio is also protected as a phonogram/film. Even very short recognisable samples may require permission (CJEU Pelham/Metall auf Metall, C‑476/17: EUR‑Lex, CURIA).
Quotation right in the EU/SE (InfoSoc art. 5(3)(d): EUR‑Lex; Sweden: §22 URL) requires a purpose such as criticism/review, fair practice, extent necessary, and source/author credit. Purely aesthetic use in music generally doesn’t qualify.
Orphan works (2012/28/EU) and out‑of‑commerce rules (DSM 2019/790 arts 8–11) are designed for cultural heritage institutions, not for private/commercial music releases.

What rights are implicated?

Two layers usually apply:

Text (dialogue/script) – a literary work; rightsholder is typically the screenwriter/producer/publisher.
Sound/picture – neighbouring rights in the recording/film (producer), and possibly performers’ rights for the actor’s performance.

Note: AI/TTS does not change the legal status of the text. A new voice may avoid a master licence, but you may still need a text/script licence.

Quick guide (use case → what you need)

Use case	Typically required	Notes
Sample the original FILM AUDIO	Master/clip licence from the producer + (often) permission for the text	Pelham indicates even very short, recognisable samples can trigger producer rights. C‑476/17
Recreate the line as TEXT with your own/AI voice	Text/script licence	Quotation works only for criticism/review, limited extent, lawful source, with credit. InfoSoc 5(3)(d), §22 URL
Paraphrase/pastiche (substantially rewritten, not recognisable)	Often no licence	See EU discussions around pastiche; case-by-case (overview: Essex 2021).
Simple reference to a film title (no quote)	No copyright licence	Trade mark/marketing law may still be relevant.

Quotation in practice (EU/SE)

For a film‑line quote to be lawful without permission, typically you must show:

a purpose like criticism, review, discussion, etc. (not merely aesthetic collage);
extent is no more than necessary for that purpose;
source and author are credited; and
the source was lawfully accessed.

Sources: InfoSoc 2001/29/EC art. 5(3)(d) (EUR‑Lex); Swedish law §22 URL and fundamentals in §1 URL.

Sampling film audio (EU law)

The CJEU in Pelham/Metall auf Metall (C‑476/17) framed EU sampling rules. In short: a recognisable sound fragment can infringe the producer’s neighbouring right even if short. Read the judgment at EUR‑Lex and CURIA. Background: European Copyright Society opinion.

Orphan & Out‑of‑Commerce (why they rarely help here)

The Orphan Works Directive (2012/28/EU) and the DSM Directive (2019/790, arts 8–11) primarily enable cultural heritage institutions to use certain works. They do not provide a general basis for private labels/artists to commercially release tracks with film quotes.

Clearance workflow (step‑by‑step)

Identify the work/scene: film title, year, timecode, exact verbatim text; if using audio, exact seconds.
Find the rightsholder: start with the production company/studio; for dialogue text—screenwriter/producer/publisher. Studios often have dedicated clip/licensing pages.
Request the correct licence type:
- Text (dialogue/script): script/quote licence (or equivalent).
- Audio/clip: master/clip licence from the producer.
Parameterise usage: territories, media, term, units/streams, track length, monetisation.
If refused/unclear/too costly: write new, original text (not recognisable), or remove the element.

Tip: When chains are messy (indie films, acquisitions, insolvencies), contact the distributor or the film’s music supervisor to be routed to the right link in the chain.

Common pitfalls

“AI voice makes it legal.” No—it only removes the master issue; text may still need permission.
“It’s only a few words.” Short can be enough for recognisability; test against quotation rules or clear it.
“The company no longer exists.” Rights typically survive and pass to successors. Orphan/out‑of‑commerce won’t save a commercial release.

So…

Cover = same song (melody + lyrics), new performance/recording and new arrangement.
Remix = original recording altered (uses the master audio), may or may not alter the composition.
Derivative/Adaptation = underlying song changed in a new way (lyrics/melody or fundamental musical character).

Splice Sounds (samples and vocal packs) – what you can and cannot do (Spotify releases, AI, artist name)

What this section covers

This section summarizes what Splice says you may do with audio you download from Splice Sounds, and the key restrictions that matter when you release music (e.g., Spotify) or use vocals from a specific artist pack.

The core license grant (what you are allowed to do)

New Recordings (music releases)

Splice says that, if you comply with their terms, they grant you a “non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual” right to use Sounds you obtain through Splice Sounds, combined with other sounds, to create new recordings for commercial and non-commercial purposes. They also say you may modify, reproduce, publicly perform, distribute, transmit, communicate to the public, sublicense, and otherwise use Sounds as embodied in a New Recording. Splice Terms of Use.

Practical meaning: You can build a new track using Splice samples (including vocals), then distribute it to Spotify and other platforms as your own release, as long as you follow the restrictions below.

Creative Works (sync, games, video, live, etc.)

Splice also says they grant a “non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual” right to use downloaded Sounds in other creative works (e.g., games, film/TV including sync uses, radio, live performances, vlogs), for commercial and non-commercial purposes, subject to the prohibited-use list. Splice Terms of Use.

Key restrictions (the list that bites)

Splice lists prohibited uses that apply to both New Recordings and Creative Works. The practical highlights:

Do not sublicense Sounds “in isolation” (as standalone sound effects, loops, or as source material for another sample), even if you modify them.
Do not sell, share, lend, distribute, or transfer the Sounds to others except as incorporated into a New Recording or Creative Work.
Do not redistribute Sounds in new sample packs.
Do not “re-record” or “re-produce” the Sounds. Splice explicitly includes “re-record vocals of a Sound” as an example.
Do not use “preview” sounds outside of previewing inside the service.
Do not use Sounds as source or training material for generative or other types of AI models.

Source: Splice Terms of Use.

Artist name, image, likeness (vocal packs)

Splice also says you may not use the name, image, or likeness of any artist associated with a Sound without that artist’s express written permission. They give examples like using the artist photo in promotion and crediting the artist as a featured artist or contributor. Splice Terms of Use.

Practical meaning: If you use a vocal pack from a named vocalist, you should not write “feat. [Artist Name]” and should not use their photos or identity in marketing unless you have separate written permission from that artist.

Certified License (proof for distributors and disputes)

Splice says you can obtain a “Certified License” for any Sound you download, to evidence your download to third parties (like distributors/labels). Splice Terms of Use.

Splice’s help center also notes that many distributors require you to disclose third-party licensed materials even if royalty-free, and that the certified license can be used as proof. They also say they cannot guarantee a track will not be flagged by content recognition systems, but the certified license is what you need to dispute a claim. Splice Sounds Licensing FAQ.

How to generate the PDF license

How do I generate a certified license for my samples?.

Do you lose the license if you cancel Splice?

Splice says that the Sounds you’ve downloaded remain covered under the license granted at the time of download even if you cancel or pause your subscription, and that the license is perpetual. Splice Sounds Licensing FAQ.

Checklist before you release on Spotify

Make sure the sounds were actually downloaded to your account (not only previewed).
Do not distribute any Splice sounds as standalone loops/samples.
Avoid “feat.” credits and avoid using the pack artist’s name or imagery unless you have explicit written permission.
If vocals are prominent, generate a Certified License PDF and keep it with your release paperwork.