"So, the basic issue is that YouTube ad-revenue is typically far lower per play than even the statutory "compulsory license" requirements for valid cover songs, so it is definitely much lower than what licensing would be for using the original recording.
licensing to use songs is not free. djs, movie producers, etc all pay a certain fee to use a copyrighted song. the fee may differ in different situations. what youtube pays per view is often less than what is charged by the music producer
Cover artists can pay a statutory 9.1 cents per play for cover songs for the mechanical license for their covers (that is, the license just to use their own recording of the audio of the song -- this doesn't apply to using the original copyrighted recording file in any way, and it also doesn't even grant one the rights for syncing the audio with video. So, you can get these mechanical licenses for distributing at audio-only platforms like iTunes, etc., but technically, they don't cover YouTube)
doing your own version of the song (cover artists) requires a certain fee to be paid per use which already exceeds youtubes payment. using originals would cost more. not just payment but you would need permissions of the original author/producer to use the songs.
So, just think: 9.1 cents per play is the minimum statutory requirement for audio only covers.
for covers not the original and this doesnt mean you have permission either
Do you make 9.1 cents per video watch? I certainly don't.
i'm not sure about what youtube pays for views, but a quick search turned up $0.04 and thats only if someone clicks the ad or watches 30 seconds or the whole ad. otherwise, no payment.
Plus, videos aren't just about audio...they synchronize the audio and video, which requires a different license (synch license).
this falls into the getting permission area again
Plus, your post isn't about covers, about using the original music.
which means more expense
So, instead of doing revenue splits for use of the original recordings of copyrighted songs, YouTube allows the copyright owner to decide if they want to take all monetization as a substitute royalty license, or if they want to mute or block the video.
basically if you do not get permission to use the audio you give up the money which goes to the author or you get the video muted to prevent use.
If you want to get around this, then as /u/shanecorry mentioned, you'll need to get the appropriate licenses -- in this case, probably some form of synch license and master recording license. (The master license is required because you're trying to use the original recording, not just do your own cover.)
basically you would need to speak with the author or producer to get permissions and work out a deal
You asked: how to find out who is the copyright owner? Unfortunately, this isn't usually clearly listed anywhere, and there most assuredly are multiple copyright owners for the different parts (e.g., a different copyright owner for composition, vs master recording, vs lyrics, etc.,) I can say that typically the record label owns the master recording right. One thing you can try to do is use a 3rd party that specializes in licensing -- they should try to "clear" the appropriate rights for what you want to do. Usually, you'll have to give them the purpose for your license (e.g., use in a youtube video) and how many views you expect the video to have, and the pricing is based around that. This will give you a royalty free (that is, it won't take all your youtube monetization) license. Unfortunately, as a cover artist, I'm not personally familiar with using master rights licensing services, since I never use the master rights (I do all the recording on my covers myself...), so someone else would have to vet which services are good vs which ones are shady.
again, you would need to get permission from the parties involved and discuss it with them
Typically, though, these licenses can become very pricy, because essentially you're paying upfront from the cost of royalties (that the copyright owners get to decide) for an estimated amount of uses. So, some sites I've seen start at $25 or $50 for limited view youtube (e.g., 100 views), and they don't even have a great selection of artists. The issue is that copyright holders don't have to authorize any of this. Any deal is usually a bargain for the youtuber and a raw deal for the copyright owner."
pricing depends on the deal you work out with the artist/producer and may vary