Australia bars mostly AI-made songs from charts

Australia’s official music charts have barred songs that are largely or wholly created by artificial intelligence, tightening eligibility rules after an AI-heavy cover of Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” surged up the national rankings.

The Australian Recording Industry Association, or ARIA, said releases must be “substantially human made” to qualify for its charts. Al Jazeera reported that AI-generated music will also be excluded from consideration at the annual ARIA Music Awards under the new rules.

ARIA said tracks that use AI in a supporting role can still be eligible. Humans must have written the song and performed the lead vocal and primary instruments, while AI may still be used for mastering, drum machines, auto-tune and other production assistance.

“These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is, to say the least, a rapidly developing space,” ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said. “Artists already use AI tools in their work, the charts can and should evolve to keep room for that, but music generated wholesale by services built on artists’ recordings is a different matter.”

She added: “A chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent.”

The decision follows controversy over Australian DJ Josh Fawaz’s cover of “Like a Prayer,” which recently topped the ARIA dance singles chart and peaked at No. 2 on the overall Australian chart, according to the BBC. The track has become a staple of commercial radio playlists and has been streamed more than 48 million times on Spotify, the BBC reported. Al Jazeera put the Spotify total at more than 48.5 million listens.

Fawaz later added generative AI credits after criticism. Al Jazeera reported that the Brisbane-based DJ belatedly acknowledged using AI-generated vocals and drums after music fans and producers questioned whether the track had been produced by a human. Fawaz has defended AI as a “tool” in music and called ARIA’s rule change a “great move.”

“I understand that AI in music isn’t for everyone and that’s fine. Good to see Aussie artists killing it globally!!” he wrote in a social media post, according to Al Jazeera.

ARIA said artists will be required to declare AI use when submitting songs for chart consideration. If a track is later found to be largely AI-generated, the association could retrospectively adjust chart positions. If the track reached No. 1, ARIA may ask for awards tied to that chart position to be returned. Artists and their representatives will be able to challenge exclusions.

The updated code is based on guidance from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which said in July that AI guidelines would be rolled out in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia for official charts. The new ARIA code also excludes music that raises “stream or chart manipulation concerns.” Earlier this year, a song was banned from Sweden’s music charts because it was created by AI, the BBC reported.

ARIA said it would use an industry labelling system to distinguish AI-generated tracks from those that use AI to complement human creativity. Under rules announced by a coalition including the Recording Industry Association of America, tracks may be labelled “AI-Generated” if AI created the entirety or primary portion of the recording’s creative elements, or “AI-Assisted” if the technology was used only for some expressive elements.

The move has drawn support from Australian electronic act Peking Duk. Last month, the group shared an AI-assisted version of its 2014 hit “High” on Instagram with the caption: “When you re-record your own song with AI so Australian radio will play it.” Band member Adam Hyde told Channel Nine’s Today show that AI-generated music was “removing the human experience from life.”

Oliver Bown, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales, told Al Jazeera that some commercial AI music companies “have assumed they can scrape training data without permission” and may be “potentially predatory on artists.” Ivan Zavada, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney, said the changes were widely viewed as a “necessary step” to protect “genuine human musical creativity and performance.”