Several record labels, including Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group, are pushing for new chart eligibility rules for music developed with generative AI. The proposal would not simply ask platforms to label AI songs. It would keep those recordings off international charts unless they satisfy a set of conditions.
The central test is whether a track is “substantially human made.” That phrase is important, but it is also unresolved. The source article notes that the meaning of “substantially human made” remains vague, as do the kinds of stream or chart manipulation concerns that would trigger exclusion.
What the labels are asking for
The proposal comes from several record labels, including the big three: Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. It addresses chart eligibility for AI songs, meaning whether recordings developed with generative AI services should be allowed to appear on official charts.
Under the proposal, recordings made with generative AI would need to clear multiple hurdles before being considered chart-eligible. The rules would apply where there is reason to believe a recording does not satisfy all of the listed criteria.
The most visible requirement is disclosure. Songs would have to be clearly labeled when generative AI services were used to develop the recording. But the proposal goes further by tying that disclosure to chart access, not just consumer information.
How this differs from AI labeling
The proposal is broader than a separate labeling proposal put forward by the RIAA, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), SAG-AFTRA, and others. That labeling proposal would create standardized labels for AI-generated and AI-assisted music.
The labels’ chart proposal includes labeling, but it adds a gatekeeping function. A song could be identified as involving AI and still be excluded from official charts if it fails the proposed conditions.
That distinction matters because charts are more than lists. They can shape visibility, commercial momentum, and public perception. A rule that affects chart eligibility would influence how AI music competes with recordings that meet the proposed human-made standard.
The proposed conditions
The full list of proposed criteria focuses on authorization, human contribution, manipulation concerns, legal compliance, service terms, and consumer signaling. In plain terms, the labels are asking charting organizations to treat generative AI music as eligible only when the creation process can meet several tests at once.
- Any generative AI services used to develop the recording must be properly authorised and lawful.
- The recordings must be “substantially human made.”
- The recordings must not raise stream or chart manipulation concerns.
- The recordings must comply with applicable laws, including copyright, related rights, and personality rights.
- Making the recordings available must not breach the terms of the generative AI service used.
- The use of generative AI services must be appropriately signalled to consumers on downstream services, such as digital streaming platforms, in line with applicable legislation and/or industry labelling standards.
The conditions point to several pressure points in AI music. They ask whether the AI service was lawful, whether training data rights were handled, whether the track respects rights connected to people and recordings, and whether the release creates manipulation concerns around streams or charts.
The unresolved parts
The largest open question is the definition of “substantially human made.” The phrase suggests that human creative input would need to be meaningful, but the proposal as described does not specify how that would be measured.
That ambiguity could matter in many production workflows. A recording might involve AI at one stage and human work at another. Without a clearer definition, it is difficult to know where chart eligibility would begin or end.
The same issue applies to “stream or chart manipulation concerns.” The proposal says AI-developed recordings should not raise those concerns, but the source does not identify the exact behaviors or evidence that would count.
Sony Music, UMG, and Mom+Pop Music did not immediately respond to a request for clarification, according to the source article. That leaves the proposal’s strongest terms open to interpretation for now.
What happens next
The IFPI has backed the labels’ proposal. Even so, the source article states that no charting organization has signaled an immediate plan to adopt the rules.
That means the proposal is not yet an operating standard for official charts. It is a statement of how major labels want AI music to be handled: disclosed to listeners, checked against legal and service requirements, and excluded from charts if it does not meet the proposed human and integrity tests.
For now, the debate is moving from whether AI music should be labeled to whether it should compete on the same charts at all. The answer will depend on whether charting organizations adopt rules like these, and whether the industry can define the line between AI-assisted music and recordings that are “substantially human made.”