Some people here realy have no clue:
the album with here cover is getting sold through Amazon, so it is a comercial product, and with that she had to get the rights for the original song to cover it.
Her cover made adaptations, with that it is a transformative work that builds upon the original, and with that, its ilegal what they did.
The version that sony made is clearly taken from her version, so the Original Artist AND she have to be credited as artists, and should be compensated.
Its not hard to see: style/key are as her version, aditional vocal parts are there with the same melody.
What i asume: the person that made the cover for sony oriented her version on hers, and the lawers had the work to secure the rights. they where not aware that this is a cover of another version and just licensed the rights to the original. Probably a oversight in communication. Sony/ND should just react, renegociated her part of the licensing fee, and credit her, next to the original artists.
It happens.
I know, for a lot of people covers are just a "silly youtube thing", and you dont have the rights to a cover... btu a cover is an arangement, and if the arangement differes from the original significantly enough, it counts as its own composition. Otherwise artists like alien ant farm(smooth criminal) , Gary Jules (mad world, a good comparison), etc would never had gotten the money they have on licencing.
Edit: if she never payed for a licence for the original cover, then all of this is null and void. But since the music industrie, and EMI (as far as i know new orders label?) are really good in getting these things, i would be confused how her version is being solt legaly then... so yeah, she probably cleared the licence.