Australia bans fully AI-generated songs from official music charts

MELBOURNE | Australia’s recorded music industry will exclude songs created entirely by artificial intelligence from its official music charts, with new rules requiring chart-eligible recordings to be substantially human-made amid growing concern that generative AI could undermine artists, songwriters and the integrity of music rankings.

The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), which operates Australia’s official music charts, said the revised rules will take effect with the chart dated August 31, published Friday. Music that uses artificial intelligence in a supporting role can still qualify, provided it is substantially human-made, uses authorized and lawful technology, and does not raise concerns about streaming or chart manipulation.

ARIA Chief Executive Annabelle Herd said the policy recognizes that musicians are already using AI as a creative tool, but draws a line between human-led music that uses technology and recordings generated wholesale by AI systems.

“Artists already use AI tools in their work,” Herd said, according to ARIA. She said the charts should evolve with technology while protecting the human nature of artistry.

The decision follows controversy surrounding Queensland DJ and producer Josh Fawaz’s AI-assisted cover of Madonna’s “Like a Prayer.” The recording became Australia’s most-played song on radio in July and climbed the ARIA charts, prompting questions within the music industry about the role of generative AI in its production. Fawaz later disclosed that AI had been used for the track’s vocals and drums.

Under the new rules, the use of AI itself will not automatically disqualify a recording. AI-assisted music can remain eligible when human creators retain the principal creative role. ARIA’s updated code also requires recordings involving generative AI to comply with copyright and related rights and to present no concerns about artificial manipulation of streams or chart positions.

ARIA will have the authority to remove recordings that are found to be ineligible, adjust chart positions and revoke chart awards. Artists and their representatives will be able to challenge decisions through an updated disputes process.

The Australian move comes as AI-generated music becomes increasingly common across streaming platforms. A study cited by Euronews found that 38.5% of music submitted globally in July involved AI in some form, including recordings that were entirely AI-generated and others that used AI-generated elements subsequently modified by humans.

The rapid expansion of AI-generated music has raised concerns about copyright, consent, artist compensation and the possibility of artificial streaming activity. Music organizations have argued that generative systems can reproduce or imitate elements of human recordings without adequately compensating the artists whose work helped train those systems.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents the global recorded music industry, has also developed principles for identifying recordings created with generative AI. ARIA said its new rules are aligned with those international principles and use the concept of music being “substantially human made” as a key eligibility standard.

The issue has already produced examples of AI-generated or AI-assisted music gaining significant audiences. In 2025, the AI-associated music project The Velvet Sundown attracted more than one million monthly Spotify listeners before acknowledging that its music, voices, lyrics and imagery had been created with AI assistance. An AI-generated country project called Breaking Rust also reached the top of Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart.

Streaming platforms are responding in different ways. Spotify has announced measures intended to make AI-generated artists easier for listeners to identify, while the company has also faced a surge in low-quality and fraudulent music uploads. According to Euronews, Spotify removed 75 million spam tracks during a 12-month period as AI tools contributed to the volume of music uploaded to the platform.

Australia’s decision does not amount to a ban on AI music itself. Artists remain free to use artificial intelligence in songwriting, production, mastering and other parts of the creative process. The distinction is whether the finished recording remains substantially the work of human creators.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as the technology becomes more sophisticated. AI music systems can now generate vocals, instrumental arrangements, lyrics and complete recordings within minutes, allowing individuals to produce music without conventional recording equipment or professional musicians.

Australia’s official charts have served as a weekly measure of music popularity since 1983. ARIA says its rankings are calculated using data from physical and digital retailers as well as music-streaming services, making the charts an important indicator of what Australians are listening to.

The new rules therefore address not only artistic authenticity but also the credibility of the chart itself. If entirely machine-generated recordings can compete with human artists on the basis of artificially generated content or manipulated streaming activity, music industry officials argue that the meaning of chart success could become increasingly difficult to define.

ARIA has also called on other organizations involved in determining what Australians hear, particularly radio broadcasters, to consider similar measures supporting human-created music.

The Australian policy reflects a broader global debate over where artificial intelligence should fit within creative industries. Rather than prohibiting musicians from using the technology, ARIA has chosen to establish a boundary around official recognition, allowing AI to assist human creativity while excluding recordings that are wholly generated by machines.

As AI-generated music continues to expand, Australia’s approach could become a reference point for other music markets confronting the same questions: how to recognize technological innovation without allowing it to displace the human authorship and performance that have traditionally defined recorded music.