In general, no, but there is a lot of nuance to the question.
First, you did not specify your jurisdiction. While many international treaties provide a degree of uniformity to copyright questions, there are significant differences between jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. is notorious for having very limited and weak "Moral Rights" while they are quite strong and significant in Canada. I am not actually aware of any differences in any jurisdiction that will make the answer to this question differ, but I cannot guarantee they do not exist. The best advice is that if you face this question in a way that will have real consequences, you should consult a qualified attorney in the jurisdiction in question
With that said, nothing about retraction inherently relinquishes copyrights. In fact, under most circumstances, the copyright holder may elect to not publish something while still forbidding any others from publishing. In other words, a copyright holder may choose to use copyright to prevent any publication.
However, this ultimately comes down to the contracts and specific statements involved. While I haven't ever seen this happen, a publisher could elect to disavow copyright (or release to the public domain) at the same time as they retract.
Its also possible that the publication never held the copyright at all, but only held a license to distribute. This is in fact what I granted with my last publication rather than a transfer of the copyright.
Even if the copyright is transferred to the publishers, there may be a clause that transfers it back if it is not published within the specified time or is withdrawn within that time (2 years is common).
TLDR: Retraction does not by itself change the copyright and it is likely the publisher either continues to retain the copyright or an exclusive license to the article. But that is a rule of thumb rather than an absolute and you will have to evaluate the circumstances around any particular article individually.