ARIA excludes unauthorised AI music from Australian charts
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has become the first chart body in the world to bar unauthorised AI-generated music from its official sales and streaming charts, adopting eligibility principles set out by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). The change follows an AI-assisted cover of Madonna's "Like a Prayer" reaching Australia's top ten, which sparked debate, and reflects the industry's concern not with AI as a creative tool but with services that generate tracks using artists' recordings without licence or authorisation.
Under the IFPI's criteria, published in late July and adopted by ARIA this week, a recording only qualifies for the charts if any generative AI tools used are properly authorised and lawful, do not raise manipulation concerns, comply with copyright and personality-rights laws, respect the AI service's own terms of use, and clearly signal AI involvement to consumers on platforms such as streaming services. Major labels including Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group helped shape the principles, and ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said artists already using AI tools can still chart, but music generated wholesale from unlicensed use of artists' recordings cannot.
- ARIA bans unlicensed AI-generated music from Australia's official charts
- Move follows an AI-assisted Madonna cover reaching the top ten
- Rules require AI tools to be authorised, lawful and clearly disclosed
New here? Start with this
Australia's music charts, run by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), rank songs by sales and streaming figures. The row over artificial intelligence and music has grown as AI tools have made it easy to produce songs, including cover versions, that sound like they feature well-known artists, often without those artists' involvement or permission. Concern grew after an AI-assisted cover of Madonna's "Like a Prayer" climbed into Australia's top ten, raising questions about whether such tracks should be treated the same as music made by human artists.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), a global body representing the recorded music industry, drew up rules setting out when AI-related music can be considered eligible for charts, with input from major record labels such as Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. These rules focus on whether AI tools were used lawfully and with proper authorisation, whether copyright and an artist's personal rights were respected, and whether listeners are told when AI has been involved.
ARIA is an industry body that compiles Australia's official charts and represents record labels and musicians in the country. Its involvement matters because charts help shape what music gets attention, airplay and commercial success, so decisions about what counts as eligible can affect artists, labels and the wider debate about how the music industry should respond to AI.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that charts exist to measure and reward genuine artistic and commercial achievement, and that allowing tracks built from unlicensed use of an artist's voice or recordings to compete undermines the consent, labour and rights that underpin the music industry. They see this as a straightforward extension of copyright and personality-rights principles into a new technological context, protecting performers such as Madonna from having their identity exploited without permission or payment. Requiring disclosure and lawful authorisation, they contend, preserves consumer trust in what the charts represent while still leaving space for artists who use AI tools responsibly and with proper licensing.
The case against
Critics of the move worry that major labels, who helped write the very rules now being enforced, are using chart eligibility to entrench their own commercial interests and slow down a technology that could otherwise open up music-making to a much wider range of creators. They question whether broad, subjective criteria like avoiding 'manipulation concerns' can be applied fairly and consistently, and fear that ambiguity could be used to exclude legitimate innovative work or independent artists experimenting with AI in good faith. Some also argue that if listeners are freely choosing to stream and buy a track, its popularity is a genuine market signal that charts should reflect, regardless of how it was produced, and that gatekeeping risks charts falling out of step with how audiences actually engage with music.
Full account
The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has updated its Code of Practice so that music made largely or entirely by generative artificial intelligence can no longer feature on its sales and streaming charts. The change takes effect on 28 August and gives ARIA the power to remove ineligible recordings, strip chart awards already granted, and adjust chart positions retrospectively, while allowing artists or their representatives to challenge any exclusion.
The move brings ARIA into line with principles published in late July by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), whose framework was shaped with input from major labels including Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. Under those principles, a recording can only count towards the charts if any generative AI tools used were properly licensed and lawful, raise no concerns about stream or chart manipulation, comply with copyright and personality-rights law, respect the terms of service of the AI tool involved, and have their AI involvement clearly disclosed to listeners on platforms such as streaming services. ARIA is described as the first chart body to formally adopt the IFPI's approach. Music that is merely AI-assisted, rather than substantially AI-generated, can still qualify provided it remains predominantly human-made and clear of manipulation concerns.
The industry's stated target is not AI-assisted music-making as such but tools trained on artists' recordings without permission, with labels instead promoting licensed AI music services. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said the new rule gives everyone releasing music in Australia clarity to work with, and urged other parties who influence what is played and promoted to Australian audiences, particularly radio broadcasters, to adopt comparable safeguards for human artistry.
The immediate trigger was an AI-assisted cover of Madonna's 'Like a Prayer', released by Josh Fawaz, which became the most-played track on Australian radio and reached number four on two ARIA charts last month; Fawaz initially described his use of AI simply as using a tool before later updating the track's Spotify credits to specify that its vocals and drums were AI-generated. Australia's move follows Sweden, which earlier this year excluded a viral AI-generated song, 'I Know, You're Not Mine – Jag Vet, Du Är Inte Min' by Jakub, from its own charts despite strong streaming numbers, and comes after an AI act, Xamoa Monet, became the first such performer to reach a Billboard radio chart in November 2025.
Where outlets differ
The Register frames the decision satirically (likening it to the 'you wouldn't steal a car' anti-piracy campaigns) and emphasises the commercial/licensing angle — that labels object to unlicensed AI tools, not AI use itself — quoting IFPI's rationale and noting Sony, Universal and Warner helped shape the principles.
NME gives more procedural detail on ARIA's Code of Practice itself (power to remove recordings, revoke awards, alter positions, and allow artist appeals) and a firm effective date of 28 August, which The Register does not specify as precisely.
NME provides fuller context on the triggering Josh Fawaz 'Like a Prayer' case, including his shifting public explanation of AI's role, and situates the ARIA decision within a wider international pattern by citing Sweden's earlier chart ban and the Xamoa Monet Billboard milestone — comparisons absent from The Register's account.
The Register credits IFPI's July announcement and calls ARIA the first body to adopt it; NME does not explicitly make this 'first mover' claim.
More coverage
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Register as “Australia’s record industry won’t chart tunes recorded in the key of AI”.