The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has banned songs fully made with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) from the country’s top charts, as creative communities around the world attempt to regulate the rapid advancement of the widely contested technology.
In a press release on August 25, ARIA announced that “wholly AI-generated tracks” will no longer be eligible for the ARIA Charts, the country’s top music charts.
However, recordings that use GenAI in a “supporting role” will remain eligible.
The updated ARIA Charts Code of Practice will take effect on August 28, applicable to charts published from August 31.
According to ARIA, an AI-generated track is “a recording where generative AI produced the entirety of the creative elements, or the primary portion of them.”
“That includes a lead vocal generated by AI, a key instrumental performance generated by AI, or music generated entirely from a prompt. Human mixing, mastering, EQ and editing do not change that eligibility.”
What are the eligibility conditions?
The revised code follows the global principles published in July by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the London-based organization representing the global recording industry.
As such, a track that used GenAI will only be eligible for the ARIA Charts if it satisfies three core criteria stipulated by IFPI: the recording is substantially human-made, it raises no stream or chart manipulation concerns, and it complies with applicable laws, including those relating to copyright and related rights.
ARIA also set out three labelling categories to help determine whether a song is eligible. They are in line with the voluntary labelling program launched by the international music community on July 10.
The “AI-generated” label means “generative AI produced the recording, or the primary part of its creative elements. A lead vocal or a key instrumental performance generated by AI puts a recording here.” Songs with this label are not eligible.
Tracks under the “AI-assisted” category are eligible, as they are written and performed by humans, while GenAI “did something minor on top of that”.
Recordings with the “AI in production” tag are also eligible. ARIA defined such songs as those played by a human, but certain AI tools were used in its processing, including “AI mastering, AI drum machines, stem separation, reverb or instrument patches”.
How will it affect artists and their work?
ARIA urges artists to answer the new GenAI question accurately when they submit their works to the ARIA survey. It also encourages them to consider the new rules when recording to ensure that their track is eligible for the ARIA Charts.
If ARIA finds an issue with a recording, it will contact the artist or their representative and give them a chance to supply evidence supporting the track’s eligibility.
They can also ask that the matter be referred to the ARIA Chart & Marketing Committee and then to the ARIA Board for review.
“Where ARIA determines a recording is ineligible, it may decline to accept it for survey, exclude or remove it from the Charts prospectively or retrospectively, adjust Chart positions, withdraw accreditations, and revoke or request the return of any ARIA #1 Award,” the association stated.
“An ineligible recording will also not be eligible for an ARIA Award.”
ARIA will not publish a list of recordings it has assessed or excluded.
READ MORE: Netflix ready to defend ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ in trademark infringement case
Promoting the ‘human nature of artistry’
In explaining why such rules are needed now, ARIA said “recordings with no human performance behind them are generating streams,” noting that Australian artists are “competing for attention in the most crowded market in history and an AI-generated recording taking a Chart place matters to the people who create human artistry.”
“ARIA is not interested in promoting or celebrating the success of AI-generated music that does not contain human artistry.”
Moreover, ARIA CEO Annabelle Herd also said the changes reflect the association’s intent “to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is – to say the least – a rapidly developing space.”
ARIA already clarified that it is not banning AI music in the Charts, and Herd acknowledged that “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 stressed.
YOU MAY LIKE: Dutch broadcaster quits Eurovision 2027, calls contest ‘platform for division’
AI-generated songs in streaming platforms
ARIA’s decision comes amid efforts by creative communities to protect human artists and their works, including calls for regulations against GenAI and clear labels stating AI use.
In the music community, IFPI and other recorded music creators and companies have announced a voluntary track-labelling initiative to provide fans with clearer information about the use of GenAI in sound recordings.
IFPI later unveiled the eligibility criteria adopted by ARIA.
Streaming giant Spotify recently implemented the “AI Persona” badge, which will serve as an identifier for AI-generated content producers.
There has been a surge of AI-generated songs in the past months, some of which even go viral on social media.
For example, a cover of Madonna’s ‘Like a Prayer’ that topped Australian charts in July was revealed to have used AI-generated vocals and drums.
Music streaming service Deezer reported in April that 44% of new music submitted to its platform is AI-generated.
Additionally, over one-third of tracks uploaded to Apple Music are “100% AI”, according to a platform executive.
READ NEXT: GTA 6 leaks: A decade of secrecy broken days before the reveal
Geoffrey H. Latayan 
Diana Mae Y. Cleto 
Anna Ferraz