Wholly AI-generated tracks will be barred from the ARIA Charts in Australia.
The Australian Recording Industry Association confirmed on August 25 how the global principles on recordings developed using generative AI, set out by IFPI, will apply to Australia’s official charts.
Recordings that use generative AI in a supporting role remain eligible, ARIA said.
The updated ARIA Charts Code of Practice takes effect from the chart dated August 31, which is published on August 28.
Under the updated Code, a recording developed using generative AI is eligible only where it is “substantially human made” and raises no stream or chart manipulation concerns.
An ARIA FAQ published alongside the announcement adds a third condition, that the recording complies with applicable laws, including those covering copyright and related rights.
To separate AI-generated recordings from AI-assisted ones, ARIA will apply the definitions in the labeling standard announced by the global music community on July 10.
A lead vocal generated by AI makes a track ineligible, ARIA said, “the same as any key instrumental component of a song”.
A human lead vocal with AI backing vocals underneath is treated as AI-assisted, ARIA said, and stays eligible.
So do AI mastering, stem separation, AI drum machines and AI instrument patches that a person then plays, according to the ARIA FAQ.
“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,” said ARIA CEO Annabelle Herd.
“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.”
“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.”
Annabelle Herd, ARIA
Herd added: “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,” Herd said.
Where ARIA determines a recording is ineligible, it can decline to accept it for survey, remove it from the charts prospectively or retrospectively, and adjust chart positions.
It can also withdraw accreditations, and revoke or request the return of any ARIA #1 Award.
An ineligible recording will not be eligible for an ARIA Award.
ARIA has updated the disputes process so artists and their representatives can contest an exclusion and submit evidence supporting a recording’s eligibility.
Disputed tracks can be referred to the ARIA Chart & Marketing Committee and then to the ARIA Board, which includes representatives of independent labels and artists.
IFPI published its principles on July 30, a day after a coalition of music companies including Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group proposed them.
The organization applied the framework to the charts it runs directly, and named ARIA among more than 20 national chart programs it was working with to extend it.
IFPI‘s framework also requires that any generative AI service used to develop a recording is “properly authorized and lawful”.
ARIA has not applied that test to chart eligibility at this stage, and said licensing between major music companies and AI companies remains “a rapidly developing area”.
ARIA backed the AI labeling standard on July 10, when Herd said Australian fans “deserve to know how the music they love has been made”.
Herd, who is CEO of both ARIA and PPCA, campaigned against a text and data mining exception in Australian copyright law, which the government of Anthony Albanese ruled out in October 2025.
ARIA also wrote AI into the 2026 ARIA Awards entry criteria in June, stating that AI “cannot be the sole or central element” of any recording submitted.
Those awards criteria require any AI tool used to be “a properly authorized and lawful service/tool” – the test ARIA has left out of the Charts Code for now.
The rules land as fully AI-generated music floods streaming services, with Deezer reporting in July that it was taking in close to 90,000 such tracks a day in June.
That volume passed half of all new uploads to Deezer on peak days, though the tracks drew between 1% and 3% of its streams.
ARIA said in its FAQ that it “is not interested in promoting or celebrating the success of AI generated music that does not contain human artistry”.
Asked whether AI is simply another studio tool, in the manner of a synthesizer or Auto-Tune, ARIA said: “A human using tools is one thing. A performance without a human is another.”
ARIA is not the first awards body to write AI into its rules.
The Recording Academy updated the Grammy Awards rules in 2023 to state that only human creators can be nominated, and that a work containing no human authorship is barred from every category.
What ARIA has done is bind the two together, so that a recording ruled ineligible for the charts is ineligible for an ARIA Award.
ARIA said it will keep the Code under review as AI policy and technology develop.Music Business Worldwide
