Australia bans AI-generated songs from its music charts

Key points

• Australia's music charts banned largely or wholly AI-generated songs starting this week, under new rules from the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA).
• An AI-assisted cover of Madonna's Like A Prayer by DJ Josh Fawaz had already reached number two on Australia's overall chart and been streamed more than 48 million times on Spotify.
• Artists must declare AI use when submitting songs; ARIA can retrospectively strip chart positions and reclaim Number One awards if a track is later found to be largely AI-generated.
• AI tools for mastering, drum machines and pitch correction (auto-tune) are still permitted under the new code.
• Sweden introduced a similar ban earlier this year, and the IFPI, the global body that represents the recorded music industry, is rolling out comparable guidelines across Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia.

Australia now has some of the strictest chart rules in the world for AI music. From this week, every song that wants to appear on an official ARIA chart, the country's equivalent of the UK Top 40, must be written by a human and performed by a human on lead vocals and primary instruments.

What sparked the change?

A single cover song forced the issue. Australian DJ Josh Fawaz released an AI-assisted version of Madonna's Like A Prayer. It topped the ARIA dance singles chart and climbed to number two on the main national chart. Fawaz later added a generative AI credit, a note disclosing that artificial intelligence helped make the track, only after public backlash.

By that point the song had racked up more than 48 million streams on Spotify alone and become a fixture on commercial radio. That kind of reach, earned partly with AI assistance and without clear upfront disclosure, set off a debate Australian music had been quietly avoiding.

ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd put it plainly: "A chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent."

What exactly is now banned, and what is still allowed?

Fully AI-generated songs are out. So are songs where AI does most of the creative heavy lifting.

But the rules are not a blanket ban on AI. Artists can still use AI to master a finished track (a technical process of polishing the final sound), run drum machines or apply auto-tune (software that corrects or smooths a singer's pitch). The line sits at authorship: a human must have written the song and a human must perform it.

Artists submit a declaration of AI use alongside chart-eligibility forms. If it later emerges that a song misrepresented its origins, ARIA can adjust its chart position going back in time. A track that hit number one could cost its artist the physical award.

What does this mean for musicians and fans?

For working artists, the rules create a paper trail that did not exist before. Declare AI use honestly and you can still chart. Hide it and risk losing the chart position retrospectively.

Australian electronic duo Peking Duk illustrated the tension perfectly. Last month they posted an AI-assisted re-recording of their own 2014 hit High, captioning it: "When you re-record your own song with AI so Australian radio will play it." Band member Adam Hyde later told Channel Nine's Today show that AI-generated music was "removing the human experience from life."

For listeners, the charts now carry at least a basic guarantee: the voice you heard, the guitar riff you loved, a person played or sang that.

As first reported by BBC Technology, Australia is not alone. Sweden banned an AI-created song from its charts earlier this year, and the global push is spreading.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised "the strongest possible protection" from AI for Australian creatives in July last year. These chart rules are one concrete step in that direction.