Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Music Group are backing proposed AI music charts rules that would block some generative AI recordings from official rankings unless they clear a set of eligibility tests, according to a proposal published by Sony Music.
The plan, also backed by labels including Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote, Hybe, Mom+Pop Music and Partisan Records, says recordings developed with generative AI services should be excluded from official charts when there is reason to believe they fail the proposed criteria. The most slippery requirement is that a track be “substantially human made,” a phrase the proposal uses without defining in the material released publicly.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said it supports the proposal and described it as a set of global principles for chart eligibility. Billboard reported that no charting organization has announced an immediate move to adopt the rules.
Can AI songs appear on music charts?
Under the labels’ proposal, AI-assisted music would not be automatically barred from charts. A recording could remain eligible if the AI service used to make it was lawful and authorized, the track was substantially made by humans, and the release did not raise concerns about stream or chart manipulation.
The proposal also says recordings must comply with applicable law, including copyright, related rights and personality rights. That last category matters because AI music fights are not only about melodies and training data. They can also involve synthetic vocals or other uses of a performer’s identity, which labels and artists have been trying to fence off as voice-cloning tools get cheaper and less subtle.
The rules would further require that making the recording available does not violate the terms of the generative AI service used. In plain English: if a creator used an AI tool in a way the tool itself forbids, the track could fail the proposed chart test. The proposal also calls for AI use to be signaled to listeners on downstream services such as streaming platforms, consistent with any laws or industry labeling standards that apply.
How this differs from AI music labeling
The labels’ chart proposal goes beyond a separate labeling effort announced by the Recording Industry Association of America, IFPI, SAG-AFTRA and others. That program would create standardized labels for music that is AI-generated or AI-assisted. The labels’ proposal adds a second consequence: disclosure would not be enough if the track fails the chart-eligibility criteria.
That distinction is the sharp part. Labeling tells listeners what they are hearing. Chart exclusion changes the incentive structure around streaming campaigns, playlist pushes and attempts to turn generated tracks into charting hits. The proposal specifically flags stream or chart manipulation concerns, though the public text does not spell out what evidence would trigger that concern.
The vague parts are doing a lot of work. “Substantially human made” could cover anything from a human-written song polished with AI production tools to a generated track with light human edits, depending on who gets to interpret it. The proposal does not say how chart companies would audit that claim, what documentation artists would need, or how disputes would be handled.
The Verge reported that Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Mom+Pop Music did not immediately respond to requests for clarification on those points. Until chart operators adopt concrete rules, the labels’ proposal remains pressure, not policy.
This story draws on original reporting from The Verge.
