Australia has drawn a clear line on the use of artificial intelligence in music, ruling that songs created largely or entirely by AI will no longer be eligible for its official music charts. The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), which runs the country’s official singles and albums charts, has updated its Charts Code of Practice to require eligible recordings to be “substantially human-made”. The new rules take effect with the ARIA Chart dated 31 August 2026.
Read More | Norway Restricts and Limits AI in Education for Primary Classrooms
The decision comes as AI-generated music becomes increasingly common on streaming platforms and raises questions about authorship, transparency and what music charts should represent.
What are Australia’s new rules for AI-generated music?
Under the revised ARIA rules, a recording that uses generative AI can still qualify for the charts if AI plays a supporting role and the work remains substantially human-made. Wholly AI-generated tracks, however, will not be eligible. ARIA has also ruled that recordings raising concerns about stream or chart manipulation can be excluded.
The organisation said the changes are based on global principles for AI-created recordings developed by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Artists and labels will also need to provide greater clarity around the use of AI when submitting music for chart consideration.
Can artists still use AI in music?
Yes. Australia’s new policy does not amount to a blanket ban on AI tools in music production. AI can be used in a supporting capacity while the creative work remains primarily human. Tools such as AI-assisted production, mastering and other forms of technological assistance can still form part of a recording. The key distinction is whether AI is assisting the artist or generating the main creative elements of the track.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important as music producers experiment with AI for vocals, instrumentation, songwriting, arrangement and sound production.
Josh Fawaz’s ‘Like A Prayer’ cover sparked controversy
The policy change follows controversy surrounding Australian DJ and producer Josh Fawaz’s cover of Madonna’s Like A Prayer. The track became a major hit in Australia, reaching number two on the country’s overall ARIA chart and topping the dance singles chart. It also received heavy radio airplay and accumulated more than 48 million Spotify streams.
The song attracted criticism over the use of generative AI, with AI involvement later disclosed in its credits. The controversy fuelled a wider debate over whether music featuring significant AI-generated elements should compete directly with recordings created primarily by human artists. The case highlighted a problem facing chart organisations: distinguishing between music made with AI assistance and music in which AI has effectively performed much of the creative work.
What happens if a song breaks the new AI rules?
ARIA has given itself several options when it determines that a recording is not eligible. A track can be rejected before entering the chart or removed later. ARIA can also revise chart positions retrospectively, withdraw accreditations and revoke or request the return of an ARIA Number One Award.
Read More | AI Voice Cloning Scams in India: How to Spot a Deepfake Call
Recordings found to be ineligible will also not qualify for an ARIA Award. Artists and their representatives will, however, have the opportunity to challenge an exclusion and submit evidence supporting the recording’s eligibility.
Why is Australia restricting AI-generated music?
ARIA says the objective is to preserve the role of human creativity in the music industry while allowing artists to continue using new technology. The organisation has argued that charts should accurately represent the music being consumed while avoiding a situation where unlicensed AI-generated material gains recognition at the expense of human creators.
The debate is also tied to wider concerns about AI models being trained on artists’ recordings without permission, as well as questions around copyright, royalties and disclosure. Australia’s approach therefore focuses less on eliminating AI from music and more on establishing a boundary between AI-assisted production and music generated primarily by machines.
Could other countries follow Australia’s lead?
Australia’s move comes as the global music industry works towards common standards for identifying and labelling recordings made with AI. ARIA said it had worked with IFPI and other international music industry bodies while developing its updated rules. Similar discussions are taking place across music platforms, record labels and chart organisations as AI-generated tracks become easier to produce and distribute.
For artists, the message from Australia’s new policy is relatively straightforward: using AI as a production tool is not automatically a problem, but music created largely by AI will not be treated in the same way as substantially human-made recordings on the country’s official charts.
Indrani Priyadarshini is a journalist and editorial professional specialising in technology, artificial intelligence, smart cities, green energy, and digital transformation. With over four years of experience in tech journalism and digital media, she is known for turning complex industry developments into clear, engaging, and insightful stories. Her expertise spans reporting, editorial strategy, digital publishing workflows, and in-depth coverage of emerging technologies shaping the future.
