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.
Content
This is the result of deep research, and I have 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.
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. Here are some examples:
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.
Appendix: Licensing Request Templates
Use these templates as starting points when contacting music publishers, record labels, or licensing agencies. Always be polite, concise, and include all relevant details in your request. Adjust the placeholders (in brackets) to your situation.
Template 1: Request to Publisher for Lyric Translation Permission
Subject: Request for Lyric Translation License – “[Song Title]” (Original by [Artist])
Dear [Publisher Name] Licensing Department,
I am writing to request permission to create and release a [Language] translation of the song “[Song Title],” originally written by [Songwriter(s)] and performed by [Original Artist]. I understand that [Publisher Name] represents the publishing rights to this composition (as per STIM/ASCAP database).
Proposed Use: I plan to record the song with new [Language] lyrics that I have translated, and to release it as a cover single on streaming platforms (Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) and as a music video on YouTube. The translated version will be titled “[Translated Title]” and will credit the original songwriters. I have attached a copy of my proposed lyrics in [Language] along with a literal back-translation to English for your reference.
Territory & Distribution: I would like to distribute this translated cover worldwide, primarily digitally. (No physical CDs are planned, but if that changes, I will secure mechanical licenses as required.) I will ensure that all necessary mechanical royalties are paid (via [my distributor/NCB/etc]).
This request is specifically for your permission to use and publicly release the new lyric adaptation. If granted, I am happy to have the new translation registered with your organization so that the original composers receive proper credit and share in any royalties. I am not seeking any share of the publishing; my intent is simply to perform the song in [Language] legally and respectfully.
Acknowledgment: The translated release will clearly credit the original songwriters [and publisher] and note that the lyrics were translated with permission.
Could you please advise on the steps to obtain this license? If there is a formal application or a fee, I am willing to comply promptly. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I greatly admire this song and wish to bring it to a [Language]-speaking audience legally and respectfully.
Sincerely,
[Your Name][Your Contact Information][Your address or PRO member number, if applicable]
Template 2: Request to Record Label for Remix/Master Use Permission
Subject: License Request – Remix of “[Original Song]” by [Original Artist]
Dear [Label Name] Licensing Team,
I am an independent producer/DJ interested in creating an official remix of “[Original Song]” by [Original Artist]. I’m reaching out to request a Master Use License and any necessary clearance to incorporate elements of the original recording in a remix.
Details of Original:
Song: “[Original Song]”
Artist: [Original Artist]Album (if applicable): [Album Name, Year]Label: [Label Name]
Remix Plan: I intend to use the original vocal track and portions of the instrumental from “[Original Song]” and produce a [genre, e.g. “dance/EDM”] remix approximately [X] minutes long. The remix will not alter the lyrics or fundamental melody, but will add new instrumentation and tempo changes. The title would be “[Original Song] ([Your Name] Remix).”
Intended Release: I would like to release this remix on digital platforms (Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) and potentially for radio play. I am open to releasing it as an official remix under your terms.
Request: Could you please inform me of the conditions under which [Label Name] might grant a license for this remix? Specifically:
- Are there licensing fees or royalty split arrangements for an independent remix release?
- Do you require approval of the final remix before licensing?
- Would I also need to obtain publisher permission for this remix?
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your help and look forward to the possibility of working together.
Sincerely,
[Your Name] (Producer/DJ [Your Artist Name])
[Your Contact Info][Link to your portfolio or previous work]
Template 3: Contacting a Mechanical Rights Society (e.g. NCB/MCPS) for Physical Release License
Subject: Mechanical License Application – Cover of “[Song]” for Physical Release
Hello,
I am planning to manufacture a physical release that includes a cover version of the song “[Song]” originally by [Original Artist]. I would like to obtain the necessary mechanical license for this in advance.
Details:
Cover Song: “[Song]” (cover version performed by me, [Your Artist Name])
Original Songwriters: [Composer/Author Names]Format: [Number] CDs/vinyl to be produced.
Territory: [Country/ies]Retail: Price [e.g. 100 SEK per CD]
I understand that [Society Name, e.g. NCB] handles mechanical licensing for this territory. Could you guide me through the process? Specifically:
- License fee rate (per unit or percentage).
- Forms or portals to use for declaration.
- Payment instructions (advance or post-sale reporting).
I will credit the original songwriters in the CD liner notes. Please let me know what steps are needed. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
[Your Name][Your Address][Your Contact Info][Society Member Number, if any]
By using these templates and the information in this guide, you can confidently navigate licensing of covers, remixes, translations, and more. When in doubt – always ask for permission. Rights holders and societies are there to help you legally share music with the world.
Sources: Avvo, Riksdagen, Lawline, Soundrop and other cited references throughout this guide.
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