Global Licensing Guide: 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 licence?”. The line between a legal cover and an infringing adaptation can be subtle. This section explains how law and practice usually draw that line, and how comments from organisations like STIM fit into the picture.

Covers according to STIM (the Swedish collecting society)

On 29 September 2025, I called STIM to clarify how exact a cover needs to be to be considered a cover. The key takeaway from that conversation – combined with written guidance from Swedish music organisations and international practice – can be summarised like this:

• Under Swedish law, any change to a protected work (melody, lyrics, structure) is formally a bearbetning (adaptation).
• In practice, there is a well-established praxis that allows simpler arrangements and stylistic changes to be treated as covers and handled through existing licences, without requiring individual prior approval every time.

STIM and Swedish music publishers generally draw a practical line between:

• Normal covers/arrangements that can be handled through existing licensing systems (performance + mechanical), and
• More extensive adaptations that require explicit permission from the publisher or songwriter.

This is also reflected in public guidance from Nordic collecting societies and publishers: they stress that you may not change the melody or lyrics without permission, while simple stylistic interpretation (different instrumentation, tempo, key, etc.) is normally accepted as a cover.

What you can usually change in a cover (without extra adaptation consent)

In both Swedish/European practice and U.S. compulsory licence law, the following changes are normally considered permissible arrangements for a cover, as long as the basic melody and lyrics remain intact:

• Tempo – faster or slower.
• Key (tonart) – transposed up or down to fit the vocalist or instruments.
• Genre/style – for example:
  • pop → metal
  • rock → EDM/tech house
  • schlager → trance
  • EDM → acoustic ballad
• Instrumentation and sound design – different instruments, synths, drum patterns, production style.
• Form and length – adding or extending intros, outros, breakdowns, drops, solos, as long as the core song is still recognisable.

U.S. law explicitly states that a cover licence includes the right to make a musical arrangement to conform to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance, provided that you do not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work. European practice, including Sweden, follows a similar logic in how covers are handled in the real world, even if the statutes use diff

Changes that normally do require adaptation permission

The following types of changes typically push a version over the line into derivative work territory, meaning you must obtain permission from the songwriter/publisher (and sometimes also the label):

• Changing the melody in a way that listeners would perceive as a new tune rather than a faithful rendition.
• Changing, translating, or adding lyrics, including:
  • full or partial translations,
  • parody or alternate lyrics that use the original melody,
  • adding substantial new lyrical sections to the song.
• Adding new melodic hooks or sections that become central to how the track is recognised (e.g., a new chorus or main riff that overshadows the original).
• Re-harmonising or restructuring the song so heavily that the original’s musical identity is obscured.
• Sampling the original recording and building a new track around those samples.
• AI-based transformations of the original recording (voice cloning or “AI remasters”) where the original performance is still recognisably present in the audio.

These cases are no longer just “different performances” of the same song – they are new versions of the song itself, and therefore require the author’s or publisher’s consent.

Reconciling legal theory with real-world practice

When STIM or music publishers say “you may not change the work without permission”, they are speaking from the perspective of copyright in the composition:

• In theory, any change to a protected work is an adaptation.
• In practice, music cannot be performed identically every time, and covers are a core part of music culture.

Therefore, a practical distinction has emerged:

• Normal covers – stylistic/arrangement changes (tempo, key, genre, instrumentation) that keep the melody and lyrics intact – are tolerated and licensed through standard mechanisms (performance + mechanical licences, platform blanket licences).
• Real adaptations – changes to lyrics, melody, or the fundamental musical character – require specific permission from the rights holder.

This means that making, for example, a tech house cover of an old party tune is usually safe as a cover as long as:

• You do not change the original melody.
• You do not change or add lyrics.
• You record all audio yourself (no master samples from the original).
• You handle mechanical and performance rights correctly via your society/distributor.

If you want to go further – new melodies, new lyrics, mashups, or sampled masters – you are stepping into derivative/remix territory and must seek permission.

Additional notes: Performing in a different style or key

Changing tempo, key, genre, or instrumentation-for example, turning a dance track into an acoustic ballad-remains a cover as long as the melody and lyrics are unchanged. These stylistic adjustments are allowed under cover licenses (including under U.S. compulsory rules), provided you do not alter the song’s basic melody or fundamental character.

Additional notes: 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.

Additional notes: Adding new verses or changing lyrics

Any meaningful lyric changes-adding verses, rewriting lines, or creating humorous alternatives-turn the song into a derivative work, which requires the publisher’s permission. Even if the melody stays the same, new lyrics are treated as new creative content. Limited parody exceptions exist in some jurisdictions, but these are narrow and do not replace the need for permission in most cases.

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.