The past month has seen near-constant discussion about the impact of AI on the airwaves and the wider Australian music industry, and now, ARIA have confirmed they’re in the process of “working through” an approach to this on the Australian charts.
Much of the recent discussion surrounding AI music in Australia has been focused around Josh Fawaz’s rework of Madonna’s Like A Prayer.
Released in April, the track impacted Australian radio in a big way the next month, debuting on the Radio Monitor Hot 100 at No. 26 – just one week after the original version of the song had itself re-entered the chart at No. 98. In June, the song topped the chart, becoming the most-played song on Australian radio for the preceding week.
It’s currently the third-most played song on Australian radio, and the most-played local song (one position ahead of G Flip’s Bed on Fire), and it has also been impacting the ARIA charts too.
Currently, it remains atop the Australian Artist Dance Singles chart, and has previously peaked at No. 2 on both the Digital Tracks and Australian Artists Singles charts. On the main Singles chart, it’s No. 91, down from an all-time peak of No. 67.
Earlier this month, ARIA welcomed the new global music industry standard for AI labelling in musical recordings.
Don't miss a beat with our FREE daily newsletter
The system, announced by IFPI alongside the RIAA, A2IM, WIN, IMPALA, The Grammys, SAG-AFTRA and the Human Artistry Campaign, has been designed to give listeners clearer information about what they’re hearing and whether songs they listen to contain generative AI. The system will be rolled out in the “near future”.
Now, following news that a global coalition of music companies – including majors such as Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and BMG, and the likes of Mom+Pop Music, Concord, Dirty Hit, and others – have issued a proposal establishing principles which seek to govern the eligibility of compositions which use generative AI on the global music charts, ARIA have offered their support on the matter.
As Digital Music News reports, the new framework proposes that recordings made with the use of generative AI must not be included in official charts if it fails to meet a series of criteria.
These criteria include the usage of authorised infrastructure, the presence of human-led artistry, the upholding of the chart’s integrity, transparency with consumers, and compliance with both applicable laws and the terms of service of the particular AI platform used.
"ARIA welcomes the global work to establish a framework that protects human artistry in the charts,” a spokesperson for ARIA told The Music.
“We support the principle that wholly AI-generated tracks shouldn't be in the ARIA Charts and we're working through what that looks like locally, using the same process we apply for any chart change to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the charts is upheld for artists and fans."
The issue of AI music in the charts is a thorny one. After all, given the rising prevalence in its usage, it remains to be seen just how this matter can be policed – especially given the difficulty of approaching the spectrum on which AI music exists.
At which point does AI become an issue? 100% AI-generated music is undoubtedly problematic, though many naysayers may agree that a songwriter utilising AI to find the perfect rhyme for their chorus may be less of a deal-breaker in comparison.
Should, therefore, the latter be tarred with the same brush as the former? Should thresholds of acceptable AI-generated content be introduced? How does one determine if a song is 50% AI? How does 75% AI compare with 74% AI?
Last year, English outfit HAVEN. made headlines after their song I Run was removed from streaming services following allegations of being AI-generated.
The track found itself facing accusations of utilising vocals created by generative artificial intelligence music creation platform Suno. A re-recorded version of the track, utilising real, human vocals from singer Kaitlin Aragon was later released on streaming platforms, though HAVEN. had been forced to come clean about the situation and the role of AI usage in the track by this point.
"It shouldn’t be any secret that I used AI-assisted vocal processing to transform solely my voice for I Run." HAVEN. said in a statement given to Billboard. "As a songwriter and producer I enjoy using new tools, techniques and staying on the cutting edge of what’s happening.
"To set the record straight, the artists behind HAVEN. are real and human, and all we want to do is make great music for other humans."
Notably, the original version of I Run was also removed from the UK charts as well, with a statement from the Official Charts Company noting it is against their policy to "include within our charts any repertoire which is believed to potentially be infringing".
In the case of the ARIA charts, no such removal was reported. On November 17th, the track was No. 8 on the Singles chart, and by November 24th, it was absent, with the ARIA Report including it in its list of songs which "were in the Top 100 last week".
The following week, on December 1st, the reworked version of the song – now crediting Aragon's vocals – debuted at No. 32.
Again, ARIA did not remove the track from their weekly charts. Rather, the removal of the song from streaming services left no data for ARIA to analyse, meaning the song literally fell off the charts until the new version was issued.
If ARIA were in a position to remove the song, however, it would be a precedent-setting incident. The most recent version of the ARIA Charts Code of Practice (dated December 2025) does not make any mention of music made by, or assisted by, AI.
