A coalition of major and independent record labels has proposed a set of principles that would exclude AI-generated music from official charts unless strict conditions are met. The move aims to shape how chart compilers and industry bodies handle the growing volume of tracks created with generative AI (GenAI) tools.
The group includes Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote Records, Hybe, Mom+Pop Music and Partisan Records. In a joint statement, they outlined that music developed using generative AI services should be banned from official charts unless it satisfies several requirements.
Under the proposed framework, a recording would need to demonstrate that any GenAI services used are properly authorised and lawful, that the work is substantially human-made, and that it does not raise concerns about stream or chart manipulation. It must also comply with applicable laws covering copyright, related rights and personality rights, and its distribution must not breach the terms of the GenAI service employed. Additionally, the use of generative AI must be clearly signalled to consumers on digital service providers (DSPs), in line with any relevant legislation or industry labelling standards.
Alignment with proposed AI labelling system
The announcement follows a recent proposal by a group of music-industry bodies, including the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), whose members overlap with the labels behind the new principles. That earlier proposal outlined a two-tier labelling system distinguishing “AI-Generated” and “AI-Assisted Music.” The labels stated that any track falling into the “AI-Generated” category would not be considered chart-eligible, as it would violate the “substantially human made” principle.
Unresolved questions around authorisation and human input
Several grey areas remain. The definition of “properly authorised and lawful” is unsettled. For example, Suno has a licensing deal with Warner Music Group but not with the other two majors or independents, while Udio has deals with WMG, UMG and independents but not with Sony Music. It is unclear how many such agreements an AI music firm needs to cross the threshold. The lawfulness of unlicensed AI music services is also still being tested in courts across multiple jurisdictions.
Determining how much AI involvement disqualifies a track from being “substantially human-made” presents another challenge. The proposed two-tier labelling system could address this, but it has not yet been publicly adopted by any streaming service. It may rely on self-reporting, which bad actors could ignore, or on detection technologies used by DSPs. Chart compilers will need clarity on these points as the volume of AI-generated tracks released daily continues to grow.
Official charts versus DSP rankings
The principles apply only to official charts, not to the in-house rankings maintained by streaming services. If DSP charts operate under different rules, they could become a more complete snapshot of actual listening, or official charts might gain credibility as “clean” rankings in a market where many listeners remain uncomfortable with AI music.
No official charts companies or industry bodies have yet agreed to adopt the principles. The labels characterised the announcement as a discussion starter. “Together, the organizations proposing these principles stand ready to work with charts and industry bodies around the world to discuss these principles and support implementation of these important safeguards for human creativity by charts and industry bodies,” the statement read.
