Australia has drawn a line on AI music: experts weigh in

Australia has become one of the first major music markets to draw a clear line around artificial intelligence in its official charts. The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)'d decision banning wholly AI-generated tracks from the ARIA Charts, has put the country at the centre of a global debate over what counts as music, who gets credit for creating it and how audiences will know the difference. But music and technology leaders say the chart ban is only the beginning.

What the ban means

Under the updated Code, a recording developed using generative AI is eligible only where:

• It is substantially human made
• It raises no stream or chart manipulation concerns

This means from the ARIA Chart dated August 31, recordings generated wholly or primarily by AI will no longer be eligible to chart. Music that uses generative AI in a supporting role can remain eligible, provided it is "substantially human made" and raises no concerns around stream or chart manipulation.

ARIA CEO, Annabelle Herd, stated: "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. 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.

"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."

Easier said than done?

It is a distinction that sounds relatively straightforward: AI can be a tool, but it cannot be the artist. In practice, however, that line could prove considerably harder to maintain as generative technology becomes embedded across music creation, distribution and consumption.

The new rules arrive after an unusually public test case. Queensland DJ and producer Josh Fawaz's cover of Madonna's Like a Prayer became Australia's most-played song on radio and climbed to number four on two ARIA charts in July amid questions about its use of generative AI. Fawaz subsequently added credits on Spotify identifying generative AI vocals and AI drums. As of the ARIA chart dated August 24, the song remained at number four on the Australian Singles Chart.

The controversy transformed what had largely been an industry debate about copyright, training data and synthetic music into a much more immediate question: when AI-created music becomes commercially successful, should it compete on the same terms as human artists?

Adding value versus risk

Louis Rogers, Senior Director of Partnerships & Sales, APAC, Leap Event Technology, who was the former marketing manager at music radio station Triple J, says ARIA's decision draws an important question for the wider music industry.  For Rogers, this isn't really about rejecting AI, it's about deciding where technology adds value and where it risks replacing the very thing audiences are coming to enjoy - authentic music experiences.

"Earlier in my career I worked at triple j, long before generative AI entered the conversation. What struck me then was how much of music culture was built around authenticity. There was enormous value placed on discovering artists, hearing a distinctive voice and understanding the person and story behind the music," he explained.

"Audiences wanted to feel that connection was genuine, and for emerging artists in particular, authenticity was often what enabled them to build incredibly loyal communities. Of course back then, authenticity was basically taken for granted. It was a value that was baked in, because AI slop didn't exist. Music that was exposed as "fake" in some way could be decried as a kind of fraud. Milli Vanilli is a stand out memory here!

The fundamental audience experience hasn't changed in the age if AI

According to Rogers, technology has changed dramatically since then, but the fundamental audience expectation hasn't. If anything, AI makes authenticity more valuable because it makes it easier to manufacture something that looks, sounds or feels real.

"That's why transparency has to become a much bigger part of the conversation. Audiences should be able to understand what they are listening to, watching, or buying a ticket to experience," he explains. "If AI has materially contributed to a song, performer or experience, we need to think seriously about when that should be disclosed. Transparency isn't about stifling experimentation; it's about giving audiences the information they need to make their own judgement about what they value."

"Authenticity is particularly important in live entertainment because people aren't simply buying a product. They're buying into an artist, a community and a shared experience. Trust is part of that transaction. If audiences start questioning whether the artist, performance or content they are engaging with is actually what it claims to be, we risk eroding the connection that makes live entertainment so powerful.

The potential to make the industry better

Experts agree at the same time, AI has enormous potential to make the industry better. According to Rogers, we're already seeing opportunities for it behind the scenes, helping organisers understand audiences, personalise communications, improve marketing, predict demand and create better experiences. There's an important distinction between using AI to enable human creativity and connection, and using it to replace them.

"What's interesting about ARIA's approach is that it recognises that distinction. It isn't an outright rejection of AI. Instead, it creates a boundary between wholly AI-generated music and music where technology has assisted human creativity,' Rogers explains. "That feels much closer to where the broader entertainment industry needs to head: embracing innovation while establishing clear expectations around transparency, authenticity and ownership."

"The organisations that get AI right won't necessarily be those using the most of it. They'll be the ones using it transparently to strengthen human creativity and connection, while protecting the authenticity that makes people want to discover an artist, become a fan and ultimately turn up to experience something together."