Universal Music, Sony и Warner предложили запретить ИИ-треки в мировых чартах

The largest music labels — Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group — along with eight independent partners, have presented a joint document "Global Principles for Eligibility": AI tracks without sufficient human involvement should not appear in international music charts.

What the Big Three Proposed

The document establishes two requirements simultaneously. First: all tracks created with AI involvement must carry clear standardized labeling — for listeners, platforms, and chart-managing organizations alike. Second: the label does not automatically grant the right to participate in rankings. A track must meet the "substantially human" criterion — being "predominantly created by a human." If not, it is excluded from international charts regardless of the number of streams or positions in local streaming tops.

Eight independent companies joined the "Big Three": Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote Records, HYBE, Mom+Pop Music, and Partisan Records.

• Initiators: Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Warner Music Group
• Supporters: Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote Records, HYBE, Mom+Pop Music, Partisan Records
• Requirement 1: mandatory labeling for all AI-assisted tracks
• Requirement 2: only tracks created "predominantly by humans" are eligible for international charts

Tracks may enter international charts only if created "predominantly by humans" (substantially human) — the key criterion from the joint document "Global

Principles for Eligibility," published by Sony Music on behalf of all signatories.

How This Is Stricter Than the RIAA and IFPI Proposal

The major labels' proposal emerged against the backdrop of an existing initiative from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), and SAG-AFTRA. That scheme involved introducing standardized labels for two categories: AI-generated music (fully created by AI) and AI-assisted music (where AI serves as one of the tools). Labeled tracks would retain the right to compete in charts on an equal footing with tracks by live artists — no separate restriction on chart access was envisioned.

The "Big Three" initiative fundamentally changes the logic: labeling becomes a necessary but insufficient condition. The main filter is the "predominantly human creation" criterion — not a label to inform listeners, but a threshold for chart access. No such mechanism was provided for in the RIAA and IFPI proposal.

Why Charts Are the Pressure Point

International charts — the Billboard Hot 100, UK Singles Chart, and similar rankings — determine far more than just a track's popularity. A chart position affects radio rotation, negotiating leverage when signing contracts, and the volume of payments to authors and performers through royalty tracking systems. That is precisely why a place in a global ranking is considered the "gold standard" of a music career. If AI tracks competed alongside live artists for spots in the tops, they would directly compete for limited airtime slots and financial flows.

That is why labels chose charts, rather than streaming catalogs, as their point of leverage. A full ban on AI music on platforms is legally and technically unrealistic, whereas chart eligibility rules are an agreement between market players that can be implemented without waiting for government regulation.

What This Means

The "Big Three" initiative is the first coordinated step by majors from declarative labeling to actual access restriction. If chart organizations adopt these principles, AI tracks will find themselves in a separate niche: without access to mainstream rankings and the associated traffic, rotation, and royalties. For AI music developers, this is a direct signal that the largest market players are ready to set strict rules without waiting for regulatory action. The open question remains: who and how will verify whether tracks meet the "predominantly human involvement" criterion.