Is this normal? (music licensing for YouTube channel: covers vs originals)

I run a YouTube channel with about 85K subscribers where I do guitar covers of popular songs. Most of my videos get Content ID claims from the publishers, which means they take the ad revenue from those videos. Some videos get blocked entirely.

I want to do this the right way. I'm making enough from the channel that I can afford some licensing costs, and I'd rather pay for proper licenses and keep my revenue than give it all away through Content ID. But I have no idea what kind of license I actually need for a cover song on YouTube.

Can someone walk me through the licensing landscape? It's incredibly confusing.

Music licensing is genuinely confusing because there are multiple rights involved in any song, and each right requires its own license. Let me break it down for cover songs on YouTube:

1. Mechanical License: This covers the right to reproduce and distribute a musical composition (the underlying song, not a specific recording). Under 17 U.S.C. § 115, once a song has been publicly released, anyone is entitled to a compulsory mechanical license to make their own recording of it, provided they pay the statutory royalty rate. The current rate for songs under 5 minutes is $0.12 per copy 🤷.

2. Synchronization (Sync) License: This covers the right to pair music with visual content (video). There is no compulsory sync license. This must be negotiated directly with the copyright holder (usually the publisher). This is the license most YouTubers don't realize they need.

For a cover song on YouTube, you technically need both: a mechanical license (for reproducing the composition) and a sync license (for pairing it with your video). The compulsory mechanical license under § 115 only covers audio-only distribution, not audiovisual works.

In practice, this is what makes YouTube covers legally tricky. The sync license requirement means you technically need individual permission from every publisher, which is often impractical for independent creators.

Okay, so if I need a sync license for every cover song, and there's no compulsory version of that, how does any YouTuber legally post covers? There are thousands of cover channels. Are they all technically infringing?

Technically, yes — most cover channels are operating without proper sync licenses. The reason they survive is that publishers have generally decided that Content ID monetization is more profitable than litigation. Rather than suing every cover creator, they claim the ad revenue through Content ID. It's essentially an unofficial, after-the-fact licensing system.

But there are legitimate licensing options available:

• Harry Fox Agency (HFA) / Songfile: Issues mechanical licenses for digital distribution. Useful if you're releasing audio-only covers on Spotify, Apple Music, etc.
• Services like Lickd, Musicbed, or Epidemic Sound: These platforms have negotiated blanket sync licenses with publishers specifically for YouTube creators. Lickd, for example, lets you license popular songs for YouTube videos for a per-use fee.
• DistroKid and CDBaby cover song licensing: These distributors offer mechanical licenses for cover songs distributed through streaming platforms, but not sync licenses for YouTube.

The most practical solution for a YouTube cover channel is to use a service like Lickd that handles the sync license, or accept the Content ID system and understand that you're operating in a gray area where publishers tolerate your use in exchange for the ad revenue.

I make cover arrangements professionally and license them through DistroKid for streaming platforms. Rachel's breakdown is spot on. A few practical notes:

For YouTube specifically, the Content ID system is kind of the de facto license for most creators. I know it feels wrong to give up ad revenue, but many publishers actually split the revenue rather than taking 100%. Check your Content ID claims in YouTube Studio — some publishers set their policy to "monetize and share" rather than "monetize and keep all."

If you're making original arrangements (not just copying the existing recording note-for-note), you might also have a copyright in your arrangement, which gives you more leverage. A creative cover adds originality that can be independently copyrightable, though the underlying composition rights still belong to the original songwriter.

Honestly, i checked my Content ID claims and you're right — most of them are set to "share revenue" where the publisher takes about 50-70% of the ad revenue. A few are set to 100% though, and two songs are completely blocked in certain countries lol.

I looked into Lickd and their per-song licensing fees are reasonable for my bigger videos but would eat into margins on smaller ones. I think for now my approach will be: use Lickd for my most popular cover songs where I can justify the fee, and accept the Content ID split for the rest.

What about my original compositions that I upload? Do I need to register those with a PRO (like ASCAP or BMI) to protect them and collect royalties?

For your originals, yes, registering with a performing rights organization (PRO) like ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC is strongly recommended. PROs collect performance royalties when your music is publicly performed, which includes streams on YouTube. This is separate from the ad revenue YouTube pays you directly.

You should also consider registering with the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), which administers mechanical royalties for digital streaming under the Music Modernization Act. And for maximum protection, register your original compositions with the U.S. Copyright Office (§ 408) to enable statutory damages and attorney's fees in infringement cases.

Finally, get your originals into YouTube's Content ID system through a distributor like DistroKid, TuneCore, or CDBaby. This lets YouTube automatically detect if anyone else uses your music without permission, flipping the script from you being claimed to you doing the claiming.