Tornevall Networks

Changes

Versions

1. 2025-08-27 11:46:46

   Discovered: 2026-03-19 13:50:20 Hash: 330e9a86d5c7932dcd7091bbf2c5698fe1e1c09c
   Title:

   Ultimate International Guide to Licensing Music
   Description:

   Updates This document is very much alive and is continuously updated. See below in the appendixes what’s been changed. The document is getting bigger, so I’m currently considering splitting it up in smaller parts. Latest changes New external pages to...
   Content

   Table of Contents
   Toggle
   UpdatesLatest changesNew external pages to readAbout this documentContentHow do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in “Public Domain”?Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What's the Difference?How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)Licensing Requirements and CostsMechanical Licenses for CoversComparison TableNote on AILegal Definitions (Sweden, EU, US): What the Law SaysSweden (and EU context)United StatesEU Copyright FrameworkSo…Remixes and Sampling: Clearing Master and Composition RightsMaster (Sound Recording) RightsComposition Rights in RemixesTranslation Rights and Foreign Language CoversHow Metadata for Public Domain Works (Classical Repertoire)1. Work vs Recording vs Arrangement2. Track Titles for Public Domain Works3. Main Artist vs Composer Credits4. DistroKid and Public Domain Metadata5. When Is It a Remix vs a New Recording?5.1. New Recording of a Public Domain Work5.2. Remix of a Modern Master (Not Public Domain)6. Credit ExamplesExample A – Straight Classical RecordingExample B – Electronic Adaptation of a Public Domain Work7. Quick Checklist for Public Domain MetadataWho Does What: Music Licensing Bodies and Societies DirectorySTIM (Sweden)NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau)PRS for Music (UK)ICE (EU multi-territory)GEMA (Germany)SACEM (France)HFA (Harry Fox Agency, USA)The MLC (USA)SoundExchange (USA)ASCAP / BMI (USA PROs)So…Appendix: Licensing Request TemplatesAppendix: Document ChangelogReferencesAll Sources (Summary List)
   Updates
   
   This document is very much alive and is continuously updated. See below in the appendixes what’s been changed. The document is getting bigger, so I’m currently considering splitting it up in smaller parts.
   
   Latest changes
   
   2025-12-15 – Added a dedicated section on Film & TV dialogue copyright in musical works.
   
   2025-12-17 – Page has grown too big, so we’re splitting the content! Also updated the page specifially, to cover some new questions (I’ve been working with Splice for a while and needed to clarify some stuff).
   
   New external pages to read
   
   The respective sections are referred to, but to find it quicker, this is the list of the new pages created:
   
   Global Licensing Guide: Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What's the Difference?
   
   Global Licensing Guide: How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)
   
   About this document
   
   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 many months of digging manually in global licensing documents. I have also manually reviewed material from OpenAI to ensure that it is primarily written by me, in my own tone. This page has grown too big, so I’ve splitted out some sections to make them smaller (like the differences between covers, remixes, etc). Licensing, costs, who decides stuff, record companies are however left intact on this page by purpose.
   
   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.
   
   How do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in “Public Domain”?
   
   A common question among music creators is whether the material they build on is public domain or still protected by copyright. Sometimes, this question is not asked due to lack of awareness or simply because people have not familiarised themselves with copyright facts..
   
   There is a general rule that copyright applies for 70 years after the death of the author. After that the work becomes public domain. This means that a lot of classical music can be recreated freely without stepping on anyones toes. The exception is modern recordings or derivative works of those pieces which can still be copyrighted. This is why fingerprinting detection can be a bad idea when distributing music.
   
   To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests. To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests.
   
   In the bottom of this page, there’s an addon of how you use metadata on public domain music, when publishing them.
   
   Click here to open it! It is available from the ChatGPT Store!
   
   Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What's the Difference?
   
   Read full chapter – https://www.tornevalls.se/global-licensing-guide-cover-vs-remix-vs-derivative-work-whats-the-difference/
   
   This section provides a consolidated overview of how covers, remixes, and derivative works/adaptations are treated in music licensing. It reflects both legal definitions and real-world licensing practice, and is intended to sit alongside the more detailed chapter linked above.
   
   The key distinction is not genre, production quality, or creative intent, but which rights are used and which protected elements of the original work are changed.
   
   CoverA cover is a new performance and recording of an existing song where the underlying composition (melody and lyrics) remains intact. Tempo, key, genre, instrumentation, sound design, and ordinary arrangement choices may change, but the recognisable melody and lyrics stay the same, and no audio from the original master recording is reused.
   
   In practice, covers are treated as new recordings of the same song and are normally handled through mechanical and performance licensing systems rather than direct permission from the original songwriter or publisher. Streaming-only covers are typically licensed through platform blanket agreements, while downloads and physical formats may require mechanical licensing per territory. Accurate songwriter and publisher metadata is essential.
   
   RemixA remix involves reuse of the original sound recording (the master), in whole or in part. This includes vocals, stems, loops, samples, or any recognisable audio taken from the original release. Because copyrighted audio from the master is reused, remixes require explicit permission from the master rights holder, typically the label or the artist.
   
   There is no automatic or compulsory remix licence. If the remix also alters protected elements of the composition (for example by adding new lyrics, new melodic sections, or heavy restructuring), additional approval from the publisher or songwriter may be required.
   
   Derivative work / adaptationA derivative work or adaptation occurs when protected elements of the composition itself are changed. Common examples include translating lyrics into another language, writing new lyrics to the same melody, rewriting melodic material, adding new central hooks that redefine recognition, creating mashups or medleys, or restructuring the song so heavily that its fundamental musical character is altered.
   
   Derivative works are not covered by standard cover licensing mechanisms and generally require explicit, written permission from the rights holder (usually the publisher, sometimes together with the original artist or label). In many EU jurisdictions, moral rights may also limit how far an adaptation can go, even with a licence.
   
   Mashups, medleys, and parodyMashups and medleys are usually treated as derivative uses in practice because they combine multiple protected works and often involve changes to composition and structure. Each underlying work may require clearance.
   
   Parody and satire may, in limited cases, be permitted without permission under narrow legal exceptions (for example U.S. fair use or specific EU parody exceptions), but these are highly context-dependent and not a general shortcut for altered-lyrics versions.
   
   Legal theory vs licensing practiceEspecially in Sweden and the EU, there is a gap between strict legal theory and how covers are handled in practice. Formally, any change to a protected work can be classified as an adaptation. In reality, collecting societies and publishers tolerate ordinary stylistic interpretation and arrangement variance as covers, provided the melody and lyrics remain unchanged and no master audio is reused. The practical boundary between acceptable covers and licensable adaptations is explored in detail in the full chapter.
   
   AI does not change the categoriesAcross all categories, the use of AI does not change the legal analysis. What matters is the result: whether the original master recording was reused and whether the composition was altered. The licensing assessment follows the output and the rights involved, not the tool used to create it.
   
   New chapter page also includes license agreement information with Splice – what and what not.
   
   Global Licensing Guide: Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What's the Difference?
   
   How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)
   
   Read full chapter here!
   
   This section summarizes how the cover-vs-derivative line is applied in practice. The core rule is simple: stylistic interpretation is usually acceptable as a cover, but changes to protected composition elements generally require explicit permission.
   
   In Sweden/EU, the strict legal framing is that changes to a protected work can be treated as an adaptation, yet real-world licensing practice tolerates ordinary arrangement and performance variance. In practical terms, guidance from collecting societies and publishers tends to converge on a workable rule of thumb:
   
   You can usually change tempo, key, genre, instrumentation, sound design, and make standard arrangement edits (intros/outros, breakdowns, repeats, minor trimming) as long as the melody and lyrics remain intact and the song stays recognisably the same work.
   
   You typically cross into derivative/adaptation territory if you change or translate lyrics, rewrite melody, add new central melodic hooks, or restructure/recompose so heavily that the original musical identity is materially altered.
   
   If you use any audio from the original master (samples, stems, acapella, recognisable fragments), the issue is no longer "how much change" in a cover. You are in remix/sampling territory and must clear master rights separately (and composition rights as needed).
   
   Additional practical notes covered in the full chapter:
   
   Performing in a different style or key remains a cover if the composition is unchanged.
   
   Shortening or looping sections is usually acceptable as an arrangement choice, but adding new verses or altering lyrics generally creates a derivative work.
   
   Parody exceptions exist in some jurisdictions but are narrow and fact-dependent.
   
   AI does not move the boundary: the output is evaluated the same way (master reuse vs none, composition unchanged vs adapted).
   
   https://www.tornevalls.se/global-licensing-guide-how-much-change-is-too-much-covers-vs-derivatives-in-practice/
   
   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
2. 2025-08-27 11:46:46

   Discovered: 2026-02-05 14:24:04 Hash: 694a8b3ca15bb890789383730b19e55fd301838d
   Title:

   Ultimate International Guide to Licensing Music
   Description:

   Updates This document is very much alive and is continuously updated. See below in the appendixes what’s been changed. The document is getting bigger, so I’m currently considering splitting it up in smaller parts. Latest changes New external pages to...
   Content

   Table of Contents
   Toggle
   UpdatesLatest changesNew external pages to readAbout this documentContentHow do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in “Public Domain”?Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)Licensing Requirements and CostsMechanical Licenses for CoversComparison TableNote on AILegal Definitions (Sweden, EU, US): What the Law SaysSweden (and EU context)United StatesEU Copyright FrameworkSo…Remixes and Sampling: Clearing Master and Composition RightsMaster (Sound Recording) RightsComposition Rights in RemixesTranslation Rights and Foreign Language CoversHow Metadata for Public Domain Works (Classical Repertoire)1. Work vs Recording vs Arrangement2. Track Titles for Public Domain Works3. Main Artist vs Composer Credits4. DistroKid and Public Domain Metadata5. When Is It a Remix vs a New Recording?5.1. New Recording of a Public Domain Work5.2. Remix of a Modern Master (Not Public Domain)6. Credit ExamplesExample A – Straight Classical RecordingExample B – Electronic Adaptation of a Public Domain Work7. Quick Checklist for Public Domain MetadataWho Does What: Music Licensing Bodies and Societies DirectorySTIM (Sweden)NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau)PRS for Music (UK)ICE (EU multi-territory)GEMA (Germany)SACEM (France)HFA (Harry Fox Agency, USA)The MLC (USA)SoundExchange (USA)ASCAP / BMI (USA PROs)So…Appendix: Licensing Request TemplatesAppendix: Document ChangelogReferencesAll Sources (Summary List)
   Updates
   
   This document is very much alive and is continuously updated. See below in the appendixes what’s been changed. The document is getting bigger, so I’m currently considering splitting it up in smaller parts.
   
   Latest changes
   
   2025-12-15 – Added a dedicated section on Film & TV dialogue copyright in musical works.
   
   2025-12-17 – Page has grown too big, so we’re splitting the content! Also updated the page specifially, to cover some new questions (I’ve been working with Splice for a while and needed to clarify some stuff).
   
   New external pages to read
   
   The respective sections are referred to, but to find it quicker, this is the list of the new pages created:
   
   Global Licensing Guide: Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?
   
   Global Licensing Guide: How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)
   
   About this document
   
   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 many months of digging manually in global licensing documents. I have also manually reviewed material from OpenAI to ensure that it is primarily written by me, in my own tone. This page has grown too big, so I’ve splitted out some sections to make them smaller (like the differences between covers, remixes, etc). Licensing, costs, who decides stuff, record companies are however left intact on this page by purpose.
   
   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.
   
   How do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in “Public Domain”?
   
   A common question among music creators is whether the material they build on is public domain or still protected by copyright. Sometimes, this question is not asked due to lack of awareness or simply because people have not familiarised themselves with copyright facts..
   
   There is a general rule that copyright applies for 70 years after the death of the author. After that the work becomes public domain. This means that a lot of classical music can be recreated freely without stepping on anyones toes. The exception is modern recordings or derivative works of those pieces which can still be copyrighted. This is why fingerprinting detection can be a bad idea when distributing music.
   
   To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests. To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests.
   
   In the bottom of this page, there’s an addon of how you use metadata on public domain music, when publishing them.
   
   Click here to open it! It is available from the ChatGPT Store!
   
   Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?
   
   Read full chapter – https://www.tornevalls.se/global-licensing-guide-cover-vs-remix-vs-derivative-work-whats-the-difference/
   
   This section provides a consolidated overview of how covers, remixes, and derivative works/adaptations are treated in music licensing. It reflects both legal definitions and real-world licensing practice, and is intended to sit alongside the more detailed chapter linked above.
   
   The key distinction is not genre, production quality, or creative intent, but which rights are used and which protected elements of the original work are changed.
   
   CoverA cover is a new performance and recording of an existing song where the underlying composition (melody and lyrics) remains intact. Tempo, key, genre, instrumentation, sound design, and ordinary arrangement choices may change, but the recognisable melody and lyrics stay the same, and no audio from the original master recording is reused.
   
   In practice, covers are treated as new recordings of the same song and are normally handled through mechanical and performance licensing systems rather than direct permission from the original songwriter or publisher. Streaming-only covers are typically licensed through platform blanket agreements, while downloads and physical formats may require mechanical licensing per territory. Accurate songwriter and publisher metadata is essential.
   
   RemixA remix involves reuse of the original sound recording (the master), in whole or in part. This includes vocals, stems, loops, samples, or any recognisable audio taken from the original release. Because copyrighted audio from the master is reused, remixes require explicit permission from the master rights holder, typically the label or the artist.
   
   There is no automatic or compulsory remix licence. If the remix also alters protected elements of the composition (for example by adding new lyrics, new melodic sections, or heavy restructuring), additional approval from the publisher or songwriter may be required.
   
   Derivative work / adaptationA derivative work or adaptation occurs when protected elements of the composition itself are changed. Common examples include translating lyrics into another language, writing new lyrics to the same melody, rewriting melodic material, adding new central hooks that redefine recognition, creating mashups or medleys, or restructuring the song so heavily that its fundamental musical character is altered.
   
   Derivative works are not covered by standard cover licensing mechanisms and generally require explicit, written permission from the rights holder (usually the publisher, sometimes together with the original artist or label). In many EU jurisdictions, moral rights may also limit how far an adaptation can go, even with a licence.
   
   Mashups, medleys, and parodyMashups and medleys are usually treated as derivative uses in practice because they combine multiple protected works and often involve changes to composition and structure. Each underlying work may require clearance.
   
   Parody and satire may, in limited cases, be permitted without permission under narrow legal exceptions (for example U.S. fair use or specific EU parody exceptions), but these are highly context-dependent and not a general shortcut for altered-lyrics versions.
   
   Legal theory vs licensing practiceEspecially in Sweden and the EU, there is a gap between strict legal theory and how covers are handled in practice. Formally, any change to a protected work can be classified as an adaptation. In reality, collecting societies and publishers tolerate ordinary stylistic interpretation and arrangement variance as covers, provided the melody and lyrics remain unchanged and no master audio is reused. The practical boundary between acceptable covers and licensable adaptations is explored in detail in the full chapter.
   
   AI does not change the categoriesAcross all categories, the use of AI does not change the legal analysis. What matters is the result: whether the original master recording was reused and whether the composition was altered. The licensing assessment follows the output and the rights involved, not the tool used to create it.
   
   New chapter page also includes license agreement information with Splice – what and what not.
   
   Global Licensing Guide: Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?
   
   How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)
   
   Read full chapter here!
   
   This section summarizes how the cover-vs-derivative line is applied in practice. The core rule is simple: stylistic interpretation is usually acceptable as a cover, but changes to protected composition elements generally require explicit permission.
   
   In Sweden/EU, the strict legal framing is that changes to a protected work can be treated as an adaptation, yet real-world licensing practice tolerates ordinary arrangement and performance variance. In practical terms, guidance from collecting societies and publishers tends to converge on a workable rule of thumb:
   
   You can usually change tempo, key, genre, instrumentation, sound design, and make standard arrangement edits (intros/outros, breakdowns, repeats, minor trimming) as long as the melody and lyrics remain intact and the song stays recognisably the same work.
   
   You typically cross into derivative/adaptation territory if you change or translate lyrics, rewrite melody, add new central melodic hooks, or restructure/recompose so heavily that the original musical identity is materially altered.
   
   If you use any audio from the original master (samples, stems, acapella, recognisable fragments), the issue is no longer “how much change” in a cover. You are in remix/sampling territory and must clear master rights separately (and composition rights as needed).
   
   Additional practical notes covered in the full chapter:
   
   Performing in a different style or key remains a cover if the composition is unchanged.
   
   Shortening or looping sections is usually acceptable as an arrangement choice, but adding new verses or altering lyrics generally creates a derivative work.
   
   Parody exceptions exist in some jurisdictions but are narrow and fact-dependent.
   
   AI does not move the boundary: the output is evaluated the same way (master reuse vs none, composition unchanged vs adapted).
   
   https://www.tornevalls.se/global-licensing-guide-how-much-change-is-too-much-covers-vs-derivatives-in-practice/
   
   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 TypeWhat is LicensedHow to ObtainTypical CostTerritoriesMechanical 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.
   
   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.
   
   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.
   
   How Metadata for Public Domain Works (Classical Repertoire)
   
   Public domain does not mean that metadata can be assigned freely. The underlying composition may be free to use, but distributors and streaming platforms still expect accurate, non‑misleading credits. This section explains how to correctly tag recordings of public domain works (such as Liszt, Bach, Mozart) on platforms like DistroKid, Spotify, Apple Music, and others.
   
   1. Work vs Recording vs Arrangement
   
   When releasing a recording of a public domain piece, three separate layers are involved:
   
   The work (composition)The melody, harmony, and structure – for example, “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2” by Franz Liszt. The copyright for the composition has expired, placing it in the public domain.
   
   The arrangement or adaptationAny added structure, reharmonisation, new instrumentation, sound design, extended sections, or orchestration. These elements may constitute a new protectable adaptation, provided it does not copy a modern copyrighted edition or arrangement.
   
   The sound recording (master)The audio file you distribute. This is always a new copyright‑protected work.
   
   Only the composition layer (1) is public domain. Your arrangement (2) and your recording (3) are newly protected works.
   
   2. Track Titles for Public Domain Works
   
   It is both correct and expected to use the original work title when releasing classical or public domain repertoire. Examples include:
   
   “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in C‑sharp minor”
   
   “Liebestraum No. 3”
   
   “Nocturne in E‑flat major, Op. 9 No. 2”
   
   Listeners search by the canonical title and composer, not by alternative or clever new names.
   
   To clarify your version, you may optionally add a descriptive tag:
   
   “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Tornevall Remix)”
   
   “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 – Liszt, arr. Tornevall”
   
   “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Electronic Orchestral Version)”
   
   What matters is not presenting your recording as a historical original or as a newly authored Liszt composition.
   
   3. Main Artist vs Composer Credits
   
   Modern distributors follow a straightforward rule:
   
   Primary artist = the performer(s) heard on the recording.
   
   Composer = the creator of the underlying musical work.
   
   For public domain recordings, this means:
   
   Primary artist: your artist name (e.g., “Tornevalls Sonic Syndicate”, “Tornevalls Neural Ensemble”).
   
   Composer / songwriter: Franz Liszt.
   
   Public domain composers should not be listed as primary or featured artists. They do not perform on the recording, and assigning them as artists may be flagged as misleading metadata. It also unnecessarily consumes additional artist slots on some distributors.
   
   4. DistroKid and Public Domain Metadata
   
   DistroKid (and similar distributors) distinguish between:
   
   Covers or remixes of modern tracks – where the original artist may need to appear as primary artist when the master recording is used.
   
   Recordings of public domain works – where the composer should be credited only in the composer field.
   
   For public domain recordings:
   
   Primary artist: your artist name.
   
   Additional artists (feat/remixer/producer): used only for people who actively participate in the recording.
   
   Composer: Franz Liszt, Bach, Mozart, etc.
   
   Arranger / Adaptor: add yourself if the distributor provides such a field.
   
   Do not spend an additional DistroKid artist slot on “Franz Liszt” as a primary or featured artist. He is the composer, not a performer.
   
   5. When Is It a Remix vs a New Recording?
   
   The term “remix” is often used casually, but distributors use a strict definition.
   
   5.1. New Recording of a Public Domain Work
   
   Example: You program and record the entire “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2” using your own instruments, synths, and sound design, without using any other artist’s recording.
   
   Legally: a new recording of a public domain composition.
   
   Metadata:
   
   Title: e.g., “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Tornevall Version)”
   
   Primary artist: you
   
   Composer: Franz Liszt
   
   Arranger: you (if applicable)
   
   In many cases, this is better described as a new arrangement or version than a “remix”, because no copyrighted master has been used.
   
   5.2. Remix of a Modern Master (Not Public Domain)
   
   Example: You receive stems from a modern artist and create “Artist – Song Title (Tornevall Remix)”.
   
   Legally: this uses the original master recording and requires approval from the master owner (label/artist) and often the publisher.
   
   Metadata (DistroKid logic):
   
   Primary artist: the original artist
   
   Remixer: your name (set as “Remixer” in metadata)
   
   Composer: the original songwriters
   
   This is not the same situation as a public domain recording.
   
   6. Credit Examples
   
   Example A – Straight Classical Recording
   
   Track title: “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in C‑sharp minor”
   
   Primary artist: “Tornevalls Neural Ensemble”
   
   Composer: “Franz Liszt”
   
   Arranger: left empty if following an older public domain edition closely.
   
   Example B – Electronic Adaptation of a Public Domain Work
   
   Track title: “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Electronic Orchestral Remix)”
   
   Primary artist: “Tornevalls Sonic Syndicate”
   
   Composer: “Franz Liszt”
   
   Arranger / Adaptor: “Thomas Tornevall”
   
   Genre: “Electronic”, “House”, “Drum & Bass”, etc.
   
   Distributor forms:
   
   Do not mark the track as a “cover” of a modern artist – the composition is public domain and has no master owner.
   
   Do not use the “remix” submission form unless a modern master is actually used.
   
   7. Quick Checklist for Public Domain Metadata
   
   When releasing music based on public domain works, verify:
   
   Is the work truly public domain?Confirm the composer and year of death. Once 70 years have passed (EU/Sweden), the composition is normally free.
   
   Are you using a modern edition or arrangement?Modern editions may still be copyrighted. Prefer an edition that is confirmed public domain, or create your own arrangement.
   
   Are you using another artist’s master recording?
   
   No → it is a new recording of a public domain work.
   
   Yes → it is a remix or sampling situation that requires proper licensing.
   
   Is the primary artist field correct?Only performers or aliases who actually participate should appear as primary or featured artists.
   
   Is the composer in the correct field?Public domain composers should appear in the composer/songwriter field – never as performing artists.
   
   Is the title clear and non‑misleading?You may use the original title. When appropriate, add a version tag (“Remix”, “EDM Version”, “Tornevall Edit”, etc.).
   
   By following this structure, you can release recordings and adaptations of public domain works cleanly – without misleading credits, without unnecessary metadata conflicts, and without wasting distributor artist slots.
   
   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 MusikbyrÃ¥) 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.
   
   Appendix: Licensing Request Templates
   
   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.
   
   On the URL 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.
   
   Go here instead!
   
   Appendix: Document Changelog
   
   2025-09-10: Updated text about covers regarding streaming-only covers, that have some exceptions for which you eventually don’t need any licensing due to its form.
   
   2025-09-29: Called STIM in Sweden, to clarify how covers needs to be structure to be considered covers. This also includes tempo change, key changes and genre shifting: All those elements means adaptations and is not considered covers. More info can be found below.
   
   2025-11-03: Added a link to a specialized GPT, that digs up copyright information about the tracks you want to recreate.
   
   2025-11-20: Scanned the interwebz for information about– “Unofficial Remixes” (Added in the bottom of the page) – describing why they are still not allowed even when they are unofficial.– How to handle metadata on music you create in the public domain and how you tag the original artist.– Also considering dividing this document to make it human readable again (moved out template examples to here).
   
   2025-12-09: Clarified additional information about covers and explicitly defined what changes are allowed (tempo, key, genre, structure) under cover licensing rules, reflecting updated STIM guidance and international practice.
   
   2025-12-15: Added a dedicated section on Film & TV dialogue copyright in musical works, covering quotes, re-voicing, AI voices, and EU/Swedish quotation rules. Also reorganised related explanatory text and moved practical clearance material toward the licensing request templates for better structure.
   
   2025-12-17: Page has grown too big, so to avoid long load times and editing lag, the page has been splitted up.
   
   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
   
   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