Music industry proposes new rules for AI music on official charts
Major labels, independent music companies and IFPI are pushing for clearer rules around AI-generated music on official charts. Here’s what the proposals could mean for artists and labels.
AI music is becoming harder to ignore. Streaming platforms are receiving tens of thousands of AI-generated tracks every day, while the industry is still working out where AI fits into a music ecosystem built around human creativity.
Now, that conversation has reached the charts.
A coalition of major record labels, independent labels and distributors has proposed a set of principles for deciding when music created with generative AI should be eligible for official charts. Shortly afterwards, global recording industry organisation IFPI announced its own three core principles, which it says will be rolled out across charts around the world.
The message from both is broadly the same: AI can have a place in music, but fully AI-generated tracks and music made using unauthorised tools should not be treated in the same way as human-led recordings.
What are the proposed AI music chart rules?
The initial proposal comes from a broad coalition from major labels including Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, alongside indies such as Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote Records, HYBE, Mom+Pop Music and Partisan Records.
The framework says a recording developed using generative AI should only be eligible for an official chart if it meets a number of conditions.
The first is that any AI services used must be properly authorised and lawful. The second is that the recording must be substantially human-made. In other words, AI-assisted music can potentially qualify, while entirely AI-generated recordings would not.
There are also requirements around chart integrity, copyright and personality rights, compliance with the AI platform’s terms of service, and transparency about AI use.
Put simply, the proposal is trying to draw a line between an artist using AI as part of their creative process and a track that is essentially generated by an AI system.
That sounds straightforward, but the difficult question is where exactly that line sits.
IFPI is now rolling out its own principles
IFPI has also laid out its own rules, announcing three core principles for determining whether recordings developed using generative AI can appear on official charts.
According to IFPI, an AI-assisted recording must:
- Use a properly authorised and lawful AI service
- Be substantially human-made
- Not raise concerns around stream or chart manipulation
IFPI’s full framework expands on those principles with the same requirements seen in the wider industry proposal. Recordings must comply with applicable copyright, related rights and personality rights, must not breach the AI service’s terms, and AI use must be appropriately signalled to consumers on downstream services.
The organisation says it will initially introduce these principles to official charts it directly manages across Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia, while working with its national group network to expand the programme to more than 20 additional chart organisations.
So while these aren’t simply a new worldwide chart rule that every artist needs to follow tomorrow, they could become increasingly important as individual chart compilers adopt the framework.
AI-assisted vs AI-generated music
This is likely to become one of the biggest questions as these principles develop.
AI-generated refers to recordings where generative AI creates the entirety or primary portion of the creative elements. AI-assisted recordings, meanwhile, are substantially created by humans, with AI used for some expressive elements.
The chart proposal uses the phrase “substantially human made” rather than providing a precise percentage or checklist for how much human involvement is enough.
That’s important for artists using AI tools in more hands-on ways. Using AI to generate an entire vocal performance, instrumental or song is very different from using an AI tool to help with a particular element of production.
The industry is therefore moving towards a system where the way in which AI was used could matter just as much as whether it was used at all.
Why is the industry doing this now?
The timing isn’t particularly surprising.
AI-generated music is flooding streaming platforms. Deezer recently reported that it was receiving around 90,000 fully AI-generated tracks every day, with AI accounting for more than half of all new uploads on some days. Yet those tracks represented only around 1-3% of total streams on the platform.
All in all, the concern isn’t simply that AI music exists. It’s that enormous quantities of automatically generated content could potentially flood streaming services, compete for attention, create opportunities for streaming manipulation and make it harder for human artists to stand out.
The chart proposals are therefore as much about protecting the integrity of the charts as they are about banning AI.
What does this mean for independent artists?
For most independent artists, this doesn’t mean you suddenly need to stop using AI.
In fact, both the industry proposal and IFPI’s principles explicitly leave room for AI to be used as a creative tool. The focus is on authorised tools, meaningful human involvement, legal compliance and transparency.
That could actually make the situation easier for artists in the long run.
If you’re using AI during your production process, it’s becoming increasingly important to understand exactly what your chosen tool allows you to do. Check its licensing terms, understand whether commercial releases are permitted and keep track of how AI was used in the creation of your music.
The bigger picture for AI music
The latest proposals don’t really signal that the music industry is trying to shut the door on AI. Instead, they’re an attempt to decide which kinds of AI use should be accepted.
IFPI itself says properly licensed AI can provide opportunities to enhance the creative toolkit, while arguing that systems built using artists’ music without authorisation should not be rewarded. That’s important.
The industry is increasingly moving towards a model where AI isn’t automatically treated as either good or bad. Human-led creativity, authorised technology and transparency are becoming the dividing lines.
For independent artists focused on building a career, the fundamentals haven’t really changed. Make music worth listening to, build an audience around it, release it properly and make sure the rights and metadata behind every release are in order.
AI might be changing how some music is made, but it hasn’t changed what makes an artist worth following.