Apple Music to add labels to AI-generated music later this year
Apple Music has confirmed it will introduce "Made With AI" labels for AI-generated tracks later this year, requiring record labels and distributors to tag songs where "a material portion" of the content was created using AI. The move follows an earlier pledge from Apple in March to flag AI-made music, which had not yet materialised, and brings the platform in line with rivals such as Bandcamp, Tidal, Spotify and Beatport, which have all introduced their own measures to address the growing presence of AI in music.
The labelling builds on Apple Music's existing AI Transparency Tagging system, with the company saying content providers are "best positioned" to know how their material was made. Other platforms have gone further: Bandcamp has banned AI-generated music outright, while Tidal will not pay royalties on fully AI-made tracks. The issue is becoming increasingly urgent, with Deezer reporting that AI-generated music now makes up more than half of its daily uploads, and a recent study finding AI was detected in almost 40% of tracks released worldwide in July.
- Apple Music will add "Made With AI" labels later this year
- Labels/distributors must tag AI-created tracks for the platform
- Joins Bandcamp, Tidal, Spotify and Beatport in tackling AI music
New here? Start with this
AI music is made, in whole or in part, using software that can generate singing, instruments or other musical content. Streaming services host music supplied by record labels and distributors, and they are developing ways to identify tracks made with AI as such music becomes more common.
Platforms are taking different approaches: some label AI-made tracks, while others restrict them or change how they pay royalties. Labels can help listeners understand how a track was made, and may help services apply their own rules. The issue matters to artists, music companies and listeners because it raises questions about credit, payments and how AI-created work should be treated.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Transparency and consumer choice are fundamental to fair markets. Listeners deserve to know whether they're supporting human artists or AI systems, allowing them to make informed decisions about what music they engage with and economically support. This labelling protects the interests of human musicians whose work may be undercut by AI-generated content, and acknowledges legitimate concerns about copyright infringement in AI training and the displacement of creative professionals. Given that AI tracks now constitute a substantial portion of platform uploads, clear labelling prevents platforms from becoming cluttered with low-effort synthetic content whilst preserving the economic and cultural value of human artistry.
The case against
AI tools are legitimate instruments of musical creation, no more problematic in principle than synthesisers, digital production software, or auto-tune were in their time. Many artists use AI as part of collaborative, hybrid creative processes, and rigid categorisation may unfairly stigmatise innovation and democratise music production for creators without traditional resources. The challenge of defining 'material portion' creates definitional ambiguity and enforcement difficulties. Furthermore, transparency via labelling may reflect paternalism—if consumers prefer human-made music, market forces will naturally reward it without institutional intervention—whilst potentially hindering experimental artists and tool developers exploring new creative frontiers.