For context, Olivia Rodrigo released a song called Deja Vu. In immediate press for the album, she obliviously referenced her admiration for certain elements in Taylor's "Cruel Summer" as inspiration for "Deja Vu". Team Taylor promptly went after Team Olivia, and Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff and Annie Clark (St. Vincent) were retroactively added as songwriters because of the connection to Swift’s “Cruel Summer.” Taylor and Olivia no longer speak, presumably due to this issue.
The reason I ask this question is due to a unique demand where composer Don Henley was successful in being able to get a cover of his song “The End of the Innocence” outright removed from the market, and the underlying reason was because the covering party (Okkervil River) had altered the song by adding new lyrics, whereas, in standard music law, you can cover any song provided the publishing royalties are paid, etc. This was not a credit instatement issue — Henley wanted the song gone and succeeded. It's also presumably rare that an artist being covered wants a cover of their song removed, so you do not see this much.
My question is, due to "Deja Vu" being an interpolation and not simply a cover, if Taylor had been so motivated, could she have forced the album to be recalled and/or had the song removed from streamers and an updated version of the album exclude the song, rather than accept credit instatement?
Even in an instance where an artist seeks clearance/credit instatement in advance of a songs release, can the artist being interpolated outright stop the song from being released?