Wholly AI-generated tracks will be barred from the ARIA Charts in Australia.
The Australian Recording Industry Association confirmed on August 25 how the global principles on recordings developed using generative AI, set out by IFPI, will apply to Australia’s official charts.
Recordings that use generative AI in a supporting role remain eligible, ARIA said.
The updated ARIA Charts Code of Practice takes effect from the chart dated August 31, which is published on August 28.
Under the updated Code, a recording developed using generative AI is eligible only where it is “substantially human made” and raises no stream or chart manipulation concerns.
An ARIA FAQ published alongside the announcement adds a third condition, that the recording complies with applicable laws, including those covering copyright and related rights.
To separate AI-generated recordings from AI-assisted ones, ARIA will apply the definitions in the labeling standard announced by the global music community on July 10.
A lead vocal generated by AI makes a track ineligible, ARIA said, “the same as any key instrumental component of a song”.
A human lead vocal with AI backing vocals underneath is treated as AI-assisted, ARIA said, and stays eligible.
So do AI mastering, stem separation, AI drum machines and AI instrument patches that a person then plays, according to the ARIA FAQ.
“These changes reflect our intent to remain dynamic and promote the human nature of artistry in what is – to say the least – a rapidly developing space,” said ARIA CEO Annabelle Herd.
“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.”
“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.”
Annabelle Herd, ARIA
Herd added: “The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent.
“We have worked closely with IFPI and a number of international industry bodies to understand how to best implement these changes in a way that is both clear and future-facing.
“This gives everyone who releases music in Australia a clear rule to work to.
“We call on all parties who have a role in deciding the music played and promoted to Australian audiences, particularly radio, to support human artistry and implement similar changes across their own codes,” Herd said.
Where ARIA determines a recording is ineligible, it can decline to accept it for survey, remove it from the charts prospectively or retrospectively, and adjust chart positions.
It can also withdraw accreditations, and revoke or request the return of any ARIA #1 Award.
An ineligible recording will not be eligible for an ARIA Award.
ARIA has updated the disputes process so artists and their representatives can contest an exclusion and submit evidence supporting a recording’s eligibility.
Disputed tracks can be referred to the ARIA Chart & Marketing Committee and then to the ARIA Board, which includes representatives of independent labels and artists.
IFPI published its principles on July 30, a day after a coalition of music companies including Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group proposed them.
The organization applied the framework to the charts it runs directly, and named ARIA among more than 20 national chart programs it was working with to extend it.
IFPI‘s framework also requires that any generative AI service used to develop a recording is “properly authorized and lawful”.
ARIA has not applied that test to chart eligibility at this stage, and said licensing between major music companies and AI companies remains “a rapidly developing area”.
ARIA backed the AI labeling standard on July 10, when Herd said Australian fans “deserve to know how the music they love has been made”.
Herd, who is CEO of both ARIA and PPCA, campaigned against a text and data mining exception in Australian copyright law, which the government of Anthony Albanese ruled out in October 2025.
ARIA also wrote AI into the 2026 ARIA Awards entry criteria in June, stating that AI “cannot be the sole or central element” of any recording submitted.
Those awards criteria require any AI tool used to be “a properly authorized and lawful service/tool” – the test ARIA has left out of the Charts Code for now.
The rules land as fully AI-generated music floods streaming services, with Deezer reporting in July that it was taking in close to 90,000 such tracks a day in June.
That volume passed half of all new uploads to Deezer on peak days, though the tracks drew between 1% and 3% of its streams.
ARIA said in its FAQ that it “is not interested in promoting or celebrating the success of AI generated music that does not contain human artistry”.
Asked whether AI is simply another studio tool, in the manner of a synthesizer or Auto-Tune, ARIA said: “A human using tools is one thing. A performance without a human is another.”
ARIA is not the first awards body to write AI into its rules.
The Recording Academy updated the Grammy Awards rules in 2023 to state that only human creators can be nominated, and that a work containing no human authorship is barred from every category.
What ARIA has done is bind the two together, so that a recording ruled ineligible for the charts is ineligible for an ARIA Award.
ARIA said it will keep the Code under review as AI policy and technology develop.Music Business Worldwide
On August 25, 2023, the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) announced significant changes to its ARIA Charts Code of Practice, explicitly barring wholly AI-generated tracks from eligibility. This decision aligns with global principles regarding generative AI recordings established by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). As of the chart dated August 31, which will be published on August 28, only recordings that are « substantially human-made » will be allowed on the charts, provided they do not raise concerns about streaming or chart manipulation.
In a detailed FAQ accompanying the announcement, ARIA clarified that recordings incorporating generative AI as a supporting tool remain eligible. However, they set specific conditions to differentiate human-created music from AI-generated content. Key stipulations include that any lead vocal generated by AI will render a track ineligible, similar to the exclusion of any principal instrumental component created by AI. In contrast, a human lead vocal with AI-generated backing vocals qualifies as AI-assisted and is still eligible for chart placement. Other AI applications, such as AI mastering, drum machines, and instrument patches played by humans, also remain acceptable.
The ARIA’s CEO, Annabelle Herd, emphasized the intent to promote the human aspect of artistry in a rapidly evolving musical landscape. She noted that while artists are increasingly incorporating AI tools into their work, completely AI-generated music poses a different challenge. Herd stated that rewarding unlicensed AI output undermines the foundational principles of the recorded music industry. She highlighted the collaborative efforts with IFPI and other international bodies to create a clear and forward-looking framework for these changes.
In cases where ARIA determines that a recording is ineligible, it retains the authority to refuse the track for survey inclusion, remove it from the charts (retrospectively or prospectively), and adjust its chart position accordingly. Additionally, ARIA can withdraw accreditations and revoke or request the return of any ARIA #1 Awards. Ineligible recordings will also be barred from competing for ARIA Awards. A new disputes process allows artists and their representatives to contest exclusions and present evidence to support a recording’s eligibility, with disputes referred to the ARIA Chart & Marketing Committee and ultimately the ARIA Board, which includes representatives from independent labels and artists.
The new guidelines come in the wake of the increasing volume of AI-generated music flooding into streaming services, with reports indicating that platforms like Deezer were receiving nearly 90,000 AI-generated tracks daily in June 2023. Despite this influx, these tracks accounted for only a small percentage of overall streams. ARIA’s stance is clear: it aims to avoid promoting AI-generated music that lacks human artistry, distinguishing between human-created performances and those generated entirely by AI.
The ARIA has also taken a stand on the legislative front, opposing a proposed text and data mining exception in Australian copyright law, which was ultimately rejected by the government. In addition to the chart eligibility criteria, ARIA included AI guidelines in its 2026 ARIA Awards entry requirements, stating that AI cannot be the sole or central element of any recording submitted. The rules require that any AI tool used must be a « properly authorized and lawful service/tool, » although ARIA has not yet integrated this requirement into the Charts Code.
While ARIA is not alone in addressing AI’s role in music, its approach is unique in tying chart eligibility directly to award recognition. The Recording Academy, for example, updated its Grammy Awards rules to specify that only human creators can be nominated, excluding works with no human authorship from consideration.
As the music industry continues to navigate the complexities of AI technology, ARIA has committed to reviewing its Code regularly to adapt to ongoing developments in AI policy and technology. The overarching goal is to ensure that the integrity of human artistry remains at the forefront of the music landscape in Australia, while still acknowledging the potential of AI tools when used as part of the creative process.
