All three major record companies, and an assortment of indie labels and distributors, have together proposed a set of principles that they say should govern the chart eligibility of AI-generated recordings. Just on the off chance anyone still cares about getting their music in the charts.
At a basic level, the principles say that AI-assisted tracks should be allowed to appear in the music charts, but entirely AI-generated tracks should not. That basic rule, the labels and distributors say, will “enable official charts to accommodate appropriate use of AI in the creative process whilst remaining an authentic celebration of human artistry”.
Of course there remains much debate as to where to draw the line between AI-generated and AI-assisted: how much human involvement does there need to be in order to say that AI platforms and tools simply assisted in the creation of a song and recording rather than fully generating it?
Record industry trade bodies like the RIAA and IFPI have started to suggest some guidelines on that via their proposed voluntary AI music labelling scheme, though with the new chart guidelines the labels and distributors simply define AI-assisted as a track that is “substantially human made”.
Beyond that basic rule, the new principles include five other requirements that AI-assisted tracks would have to meet in order to be chart eligible, some of which seek to force the record industry’s view on how AI should be used in the creative process.
Some of the other requirements are quite straightforward, so tracks must comply with copyright law and not infringe any personality rights, and tracks must not be subject to any dodgy stream manipulation.
But in addition to that, any AI tools used in the creative process must be “properly authorised and lawful”; the release of the track must not breach the terms of the AI platform; and the fact AI tools have been used must be declared, presumably using the aforementioned voluntary AI music labelling scheme. Which would make that scheme somewhat less voluntary for any artist or label hoping to chart.
The “properly authorised and lawful” requirement would force artists to only use AI platforms and tools that are fully licensed by the music industry, which is currently a small minority of those platforms.
That rule has problems when it comes to enforcement, as it would require artists and labels to not only declare that AI had been used in the creative process, but also to list what specific tools and platforms were involved. There would also need to be a clearer guide for everyone in the industry on which AI tools are licensed and legit, although initiatives like Fairly Trained are working on that.
The “must not breach the terms of the AI platform” rule is also interesting. It’s known that the majors are keen for AI music platforms to operate a ‘walled garden’ system, where AI-generated tracks can only be shared within the platform where they are created. If people found a way to hack the garden wall and release that music onto mainstream streaming platforms, this rule would stop those tracks from charting.
It remains to be seen what the various chart compilers around the world do with these principles. Although, given many of those chart compilers are connected to or owned by record industry trade groups, or rely on record companies as clients, presumably they will be keen to comply.
And while, for many artists and music fans, the charts do seem increasingly irrelevant, having a top ten record, even in a specialist chart, is still useful for marketing. And these principles may also be applied to the systems for declaring tracks and albums gold and platinum. Which means a decent slice of the industry probably will pay attention to these rules if and when the chart compilers start applying them.
Not least all the labels and distributors that have already backed the principles, which - in addition to Universal Music, Sony Music and Warner Music - includes Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote Records, HYBE Corp, Mom+Pop Music and Partisan Records.