Australia's music charts ban substantially AI-generated songs, setting a 'substantially human made' eligibility threshold with retrospective enforcement powers
The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has banned songs that are largely or wholly created by artificial intelligence from Australia's official music charts, effective this week. Under the new rules, all chart-eligible releases must be 'substantially human made': humans must have written the song and performed the lead vocal and primary instruments. AI tools may still be used for mastering, drum machines, and pitch correction, but the creative core must remain human. The trigger for the policy change was a controversy involving Australian DJ Josh Fawaz, whose AI-assisted cover of Madonna's 'Like A Prayer' recently topped the ARIA dance singles chart and reached number two on the overall chart, accumulating more than 48 million Spotify streams. Fawaz subsequently added generative AI credits to the track following a public backlash. ARIA has reserved retrospective enforcement powers: if it later emerges that a charting song was largely AI-generated, the association may adjust chart positions and, where a song topped the charts, request the return of any Number One awards. Artists may challenge exclusions. The code is based on a directive from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which has been rolling out AI guidelines across Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia. A comparable ban was introduced in Sweden earlier this year. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said the changes were designed to ensure the charts did not become a vehicle for 'unlicensed AI output' built on artists' recordings.
Why this matters
The ARIA rules represent one of the clearest industry-level regulatory responses yet to generative AI in a creative sector, and their design raises questions that will be directly relevant to UK and EU music lawyers. The 'substantially human made' standard is a threshold test rather than a binary rule, which means disputes about eligibility will turn on characterisation: who performed what, and how much of the creative work was AI-directed. The retrospective adjustment power is legally unusual and potentially contentious, as it means chart status and associated commercial benefits can be unwound after the fact. The IFPI directive underpinning the rules also signals that this approach is being standardised globally, increasing the likelihood of analogous rules reaching the UK charts.
On the Ground
For UK music and entertainment lawyers, the immediate practical question is how equivalent rules might be implemented in British chart frameworks and what licensing obligations attach to AI-assisted music that uses existing recordings as training data. Intellectual property practices will be advising record labels, publishers, and distributors on disclosure obligations, the risk of retrospective chart adjustments, and what a 'substantially human made' declaration process requires. Trainees on an AI content matter would be reviewing technology licence agreements covering AI music tools, drafting AI governance policy frameworks for artist and label clients, and preparing regulatory impact assessment memos comparing the ARIA rules with emerging UK creative industry guidance.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“If a UK record label's artist used AI tools to generate a significant portion of a track that subsequently charted, what legal risks would the label face, and how would you advise them to manage those risks going forward?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved