Songs created by AI banned from Australia’s music charts
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Australia's music industry body ARIA has confirmed new rules banning songs that are largely or wholly created by AI from the country's music charts, requiring all eligible releases to be "substantially human made" from this week. The change follows controversy over Australian DJ Josh Fawaz's AI-assisted cover of Madonna's "Like A Prayer", which topped the ARIA dance chart, reached number two overall and was streamed more than 48 million times on Spotify before Fawaz added AI credits following a backlash; ARIA said it did not want to "promote or celebrate" chart success built on AI-generated music lacking human artistry.
Under the new code, based on IFPI guidance, humans must write the song and perform lead vocals and primary instruments, though AI can still be used for mastering, drum machines and auto-tune; artists must declare AI use when submitting music for chart consideration, and can challenge any exclusion. ARIA can retrospectively strip chart positions and reclaim Number One awards if a release is later found to be substantially AI-generated. The move follows a similar ban in Sweden earlier this year and drew support from acts including Peking Duk, whose member Adam Hyde said AI music risked "removing the human experience from life", while Australian PM Anthony Albanese has separately pledged stronger AI protections for creatives.
- ARIA bans largely AI-made songs from Australia's music charts
- Prompted by backlash over Josh Fawaz's AI-assisted Madonna cover
- Artists must declare AI use; chart positions can be revoked retrospectively
New here? Start with this
ARIA is the industry body that compiles Australia's official record charts, and it has decided that songs must be mostly made by humans to qualify. The trigger was a Madonna cover by DJ Josh Fawaz that shot up the charts before he revealed it used AI tools, prompting complaints that it was unfairly competing with human-made music.
Under the new rules, artists still get to use AI for things like mastering or auto-tune, but a person must have written the song and performed the main vocals and instruments. Artists now have to declare any AI involvement, and ARIA can review or strip chart positions later if that turns out not to be true.
This fits into a wider debate across the music industry about how AI-assisted or AI-generated tracks should be treated, with Sweden having taken similar action before Australia. Some musicians support the change as a way of protecting human creativity, while questions remain about how consistently the rules can be enforced and how other countries or platforms might respond.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that music charts exist to celebrate distinctly human creativity and craft, and that allowing largely AI-generated tracks to top them cheapens that achievement while potentially misleading listeners, as the Josh Fawaz case illustrated. They see the rule as a reasonable safeguard for working musicians in an already crowded market, protecting them from being undercut by content that can be produced far more cheaply and at greater volume than traditional songwriting and performance. Requiring declaration and allowing retrospective correction is, in this view, a proportionate transparency measure rather than a heavy-handed restriction, since AI can still be used for production tasks such as mastering or auto-tune. Aligning with international guidelines and Sweden's precedent also lends the policy a sense of considered, industry-wide consensus rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
The case against
Critics of the ban, or at least of its rigidity, argue that music technology has always evolved through tools once considered controversial, from synthesisers to samplers to auto-tune, and that treating generative AI as categorically different risks stifling legitimate innovation in how songs are made. They contend that charts are meant to reflect what audiences genuinely enjoy listening to, as shown by the Madonna cover's tens of millions of streams, and that policing the creative process behind a popular song is a subjective and difficult line to draw, particularly when AI assistance can range from trivial to substantial. There is also concern that the policy leans heavily on self-declaration and after-the-fact investigation, which could be inconsistently enforced and create uncertainty for artists who use AI tools in good faith as part of a broader creative process. Some would argue the more honest response to public unease is clearer labelling rather than exclusion, letting listeners and the market decide what they value.
More coverage
- Variety — Australia Bans AI-Generated Tracks From Official Music Charts to ‘Promote the Human Nature of Artistry’
- NME — AI-generated songs banned from Australian charts
- Stereogum — Australia Bans AI-Generated Songs From Music Charts