By Louis Rogers, Sr. Director Partnerships & Sales (APAC) of Leap Event Technology
Australia has become one of the first major music markets to draw a clear line around artificial intelligence in its official charts.
The decision by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) to ban wholly AI-generated tracks from the ARIA Charts has put the country at the center 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?
+Read more: "Why I Truly Believe Artistry Beats the Algorithm, Every Time."
The Critical Question the Music Industry Must Now Confront
Con Raso (Co-Founder of Tuned Global) says ARIA’s decision highlights a question the entire global music industry is now having to confront: Where do we draw the line between AI as a creative tool and AI as the creator?
According to Raso:
“There’s an important distinction between music that is generated almost entirely by AI and artists using AI as part of a broader human creative process. AI is already becoming another tool available to musicians, producers and songwriters, and we shouldn’t create rules that inadvertently discourage artists from experimenting with new technology.”
“What matters is transparency. Listeners, platforms and rights holders need to understand how a piece of music was created, who contributed to it and what rights sit behind it. Clear attribution and metadata will become increasingly important as AI-generated and AI-assisted music grows.”
Chart Eligibility Is Only Part of a Much Bigger Issue
In Raso's perspective, ARIA’s move is an understandable attempt to protect the value of human artistry, but chart eligibility is only one part of a much bigger issue:
“Streaming services and music platforms globally will increasingly need mechanisms to identify AI-generated content, manage the associated rights and royalties, and give businesses and consumers meaningful choices about how that content appears in their services. Ultimately, AI isn’t going away. The challenge for the music industry is to build frameworks that protect artists and rightsholders without closing the door on genuinely innovative ways for humans to use technology to create music.”
To distinguish AI-generated recordings from AI-assisted ones, ARIA will apply the definitions in the labelling standard announced by the global music community on 10 July. ARIA will keep the Code under review as AI policy and technology develop. Raso continues:
“There’s an important distinction between music that is generated almost entirely by AI and artists using AI as part of a broader human creative process. AI is already becoming another tool available to musicians, producers and songwriters, and we shouldn’t create rules that inadvertently discourage artists from experimenting with new technology.”
“What matters is transparency. Listeners, platforms and rights holders need to understand how a piece of music was created, who contributed to it and what rights sit behind it. Clear attribution and metadata will become increasingly important as AI-generated and AI-assisted music grows.”
+Read more: "'Human-First' Needs More Than Just a Checkbox"
Adding Value Versus Risk
ARIA’s decision draws an important question for the wider music industry. For me, 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.
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!
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. 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. We’re already seeing opportunities for it behind the scenes, helping organizers understand audiences, personalize 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 recognizes 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. 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 organizations 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.
Louis Rogers is Senior Director of Partnerships & Sales, APAC at Leap Event Technology, where he works with event organizers, venue operators, sporting organizations and entertainment brands to harness technology to reach new audiences and achieve sustainable growth.
Leap’s global event technology solution empowers organizers to transform their events into electrifying experiences for attendees. The company provides an all-in-one suite of ticketing, mobile apps, experiential marketing, and event management tools, combined with expert marketing and analytics services.
