Breaking Rust, one of 2025’s breakout AI ‘artists’
So, where do you stand on AI music? After a string of AI-generated ‘hits’ and breakout ‘artists,’ the industry’s rules remain mostly vague and undefined in 2026 – and, of course, subject to change.
Five minutes into the AI music tsunami, and things are already getting more complicated. But after a string of AI-generated ‘hits’ – if we can call them that – a few platforms and players are starting to take a stand. For most, however, hard rules are hard to come by.
Complicating matters is that the biggest AI breakouts of 2025-6 aren’t purely AI-generated; they’re partially AI-generated with heavy human guidance. AI wunderkinds like Velvet Sundown, Breaking Rust, HAVEN, and – most recently – Jacub and Sienna Rose – are the work of sophisticated human handlers twiddling the knobs on AI tools – and sometimes managing the mess after something goes viral.
The responses to all of this have been all over the place, though Bandcamp has now officially banned music generated by AI, wholly or even partially.
And to enforce this new policy, the company is encouraging its community to flag suspicious content for review – with a rallying cry to preserve Bandcamp as a haven for independent creators.
Beyond that, bright lines are harder to find.
On music’s biggest stage, don’t expect an AI-generated ‘artist’ to score a Grammy anytime soon. But the Beatles’ AI-resurrected “Now and Then” has already been awarded a Grammy for Best Rock Performance. The Recording Academy’s rule – “a work that contains no human authorship is not eligible in any category” – sounds firm enough, but it also leaves the door open for interpretation, especially in our nascent era of partially-generated AI smashes.
And what about the US Copyright Office?
A very similar line has also been drawn at the USCO: fully-generated AI works are non-copyrightable, though human-authored portions of a partly AI-generated work are copyrightable. Sounds straightforward, until a hopelessly-intertwined human-meets-AI song registration comes along (or worse, an infringement lawsuit tied to that song).
And what about the rest of the music universe? That’s where things get murkier by the minute, with this Wild West being ruled on a case-by-case basis.
Look no further than HAVEN’s ‘I Run’. TikTok, a notoriously artist-unfriendly platform (though that’s about to improve a bit, according to DMN sources), only clipped the track after major label static arose over its AI-cribbing of Jorja Smith’s voice. But a quickly reworked version – with a soundalike human singer – quickly resurfaced on the platform.
Billboard also removed the track from its charts, but only because of the high-profile legal questions surrounding it. Earlier, other AI-generated songs have elevated Billboard’s rankings, including Breaking Rust and Xania Monet – albeit mostly on fringe charts.
So is Billboard’s policy to disqualify any track that gets enough high-profile takedowns and negative copyright attention, and let the rest slide?
Elsewhere, Sverigetopplistan—Sweden’s official chart compiled by IFPI Sweden — quickly removed a fast-rising AI-assisted song by folk-pop AI concoction Jacub, whose human creators (at Copenhagen-based Stellar Music) asserted that AI was merely part of their creative process.
Unlike Billboard, the Swedish music business seems less in the mood for AI chart-toppers. “Our rule is that if a song is mainly AI-generated, it does not have the right to be on the top list,” Ludvig Werner, IFPI Sweden’s CEO, assessed.
And that’s where a huge rift emerged. Spotify isn’t yanking Jacub – and, more broadly, the world’s biggest streaming music platform usually lets AI-generated songs run on its platform.
But Spotify also flushed their platform of tens of millions of AI slop tracks – so who knows what the ‘rules’ really are around AI (hint: there really aren’t any – at least not yet).
Others are also dancing in the gray area during these early days. Apple Music has largely been left out of this discussion, but America’s number two music streaming platform also pulled HAVEN’s ‘I Run’ and reinstated the reworked version.
And YouTube – well, let’s not even get started on this ‘slop factory’. Though an interesting side note is that YouTube’s self-imposed removal from Billboard’s charts does have industry folks predicting that less AI dreck will slingshot up the charts.
In the end, DSPs and social media platforms are largely lax on AI-generated songs. But is this what music fans really want?
Most TikTokers had little idea that ‘I Run’ was heavily AI-generated. And judging by its use as background music on a wide range of videos, it wasn’t even a thought for most.
But would these AI-generated tracks be as successful if people knew they were AI-generated, partially or otherwise?
Enter the complex layer of listener perception and blowback. Online, the backlash to AI-generated music is real – but we’re only seeing the first clues of how the broader public will react. And if Suno is the music creators’ Ozempic, as Suno CEO Mikey Shulman asserts, it’s going to be difficult to pick out what’s what.
But what if Spotify clearly labeled AI-generated tracks? Deezer goes to great lengths to label its AI content, while Spotify currently does not. In fairness, Spotify is working on the DDEX standard to label AI-generated content, but the platform says artists’ use of the standard will be voluntary – meaning nobody will be forced to label music as entirely or partly AI-created.
And the grand conclusion – if one can be made?
At this stage in the game, there aren’t too many rules in this here Wild West town – though for now, it looks like AI-heavy hits will continue to light up Spotify, TikTok, YouTube, and the lot. At least until somebody big enough rips them down or does a ‘slop purge’.