Robots can write code and can paint pictures, but they can’t top Australia’s music charts anymore. 

Starting this week, the Australian Recording Industry Association, better known as ARIA, is drawing a line. 

Songs must be “substantially human-made” to count. If a track leans too heavily on AI, it’s out.

Madonna’s AI Cover

The story starts with a DJ named Josh Fawaz. He released a cover of Madonna’s classic “Like A Prayer.” 

The song exploded; it hit number one on ARIA’s dance chart and climbed to number two overall. Radio stations couldn’t stop playing it, and Spotify streams passed 48 million.

Then the backlash hit.

Fawaz eventually added generative AI credits to the track, and that left fans and industry insiders feeling misled.  After all, nobody had disclosed the AI involvement upfront. 

New Rules

Under the updated code, humans still need to write the song, perform the lead vocals, and play the main instruments.

AI isn’t banned completely, though. Artists can still use it for smaller tasks such as mastering a track, Auto-Tune, and drum machines. 

Those tools have been part of music production for years, but ARIA cares more about authorship.

Human Artistry

ARIA’s chief executive said the goal of the policy is to protect “the human nature of artistry.” She pointed out that Australian musicians already compete in an incredibly crowded market. 

Adding fully AI-generated tracks into that mix, she argued, tips the scales unfairly. 

Herd also highlighted how many AI music tools are trained on existing songs, often without permission from the original artists. 

If a chart rewards that kind of output, she said, it undermines the entire foundation of recorded music.

Artists

The Australian electronic duo Peking Duk, last month, posted an AI-assisted remake of their 2014 hit “High.” 

The caption said that they made the AI version specifically so Australian radio would play it. It was part joke, part pointed critique.

Band member Adam Hyde said AI-generated music risks stripping away the human experience from life itself. That captures how many artists feel right now.

Sweden

Sweden banned an AI-created song from its own charts earlier this year. 

And in July, a global music trade group called the IFPI announced it would roll out AI guidelines across several regions, including Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

In other words, this is becoming a worldwide conversation. Music charts everywhere are trying to figure out where AI fits, if it fits at all.

Proving Human Music

Going forward, artists submitting music for chart consideration in Australia will need to declare any AI use upfront. No more surprises after the fact.

And if ARIA later discovers a song was mostly AI-generated, it can adjust chart rankings after the fact. 

If that song had reached number one, ARIA might even ask for any awards to be returned.

Artists do have a safety net, though. If they’re excluded from the charts, they, or their representatives, can challenge that decision.

Australia

Back in July, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made a promise to the country’s creative community. 

He pledged what he called the strongest possible protection from AI for Australian artists.

Albanese also said musicians and writers should get to choose whether their work trains AI systems at all. Using their work without that choice, he said, would amount to theft.

So this chart policy fits into an overarching goal. Australia seems to be positioning itself as a place where human creativity still comes first, even as AI tools grow more powerful by the month.