The record industry has started drawing a line to keep AI songs off the charts, and a lot of the coverage since has left musicians wondering whether their own music now counts as "AI". Read the actual principles and, for most people making music with tools, the answer is no.
As of 11 August 2026. General information, not legal advice, and these principles are days old with almost no practice behind them yet.
On 30 July 2026 the IFPI, the body that runs official record charts across much of the world, rolled out a set of principles for when a recording made with generative AI can appear on those charts. The major labels, Sony, Universal and Warner, along with a number of independents, put the principles forward, and IFPI is applying them first to the charts it runs directly across Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia, with more than twenty others set to follow.
The stated aim is a clean one. IFPI describes it as drawing "a clear boundary between human-led creativity and works that are purely synthetic, or generated by unauthorised AI models". That sentence is really the whole story, and it's worth reading twice before anyone panics.
The principles set four conditions for a song that uses AI to stay chart-eligible:
Read them together and a pattern shows up. Three of the four are about permission, honesty and the law. Only the last one is about how the song was made, and even that sets the bar at "primarily created by a human", not "made without software".
This is where the worry misfires. The rules are aimed at recordings that are purely synthetic, or that come out of an unauthorised model, the kind of track where a generator gets handed a prompt and spits back the finished audio. They're not aimed at someone using tools to make their own music.
Nearly every record made this century leaned on software. A synth is software. An arpeggiator writes notes for you. A drum machine plays a part you never performed. None of that has ever made a song "not human". The line the industry is drawing sits much further along than that, at the point where a person stops making the choices and a model starts.
The distinction worth holding onto is between a tool and a generator. A generator makes the song for you: a model trained on a pile of recordings that outputs a finished track from a prompt. A tool is something you play and steer, and what comes out is still yours. A generative instrument that works by algorithm and music theory, with no trained model and nothing pulled from anyone's catalogue, is a tool in that sense. You hold a note, you shape it, you decide what stays and what goes. The human is still the one making the calls, which is exactly what the fourth principle asks for.
Where any particular tool lands is not ours to declare. These principles are days old, they're being applied chart by chart, and the reading of "primarily created by a human" is going to get worked out by the chart bodies over time, not by anyone writing about it now.
We build instruments that compose by rule. There's no model here trained on anybody's recordings, and nothing in them is trying to sound like a real artist. So the honest answer to the worry underneath all of this, "has my music become AI", is that using a clever instrument to make something you wrote and shaped doesn't turn you into a machine.
The useful habit, chart rules or not, is being able to say plainly where a piece of music came from and who made the calls inside it. That was worth doing before these principles landed, and it'll still be worth doing long after the arguments over them are settled.
We write these when there is something worth writing down. One email when a new one lands or a new Tunary instrument ships. No newsletter, no schedule.
Tunary