Spotify has released their new guidelines regarding AI-generated music which hopes to protect artists, producers, and listeners alike. Within the past 12 months, they revealed they had taken down 75 million ‘spammy tracks’ from the platform, however many are demanding the music giant to do more.
AI music continues to receive heavy criticism from both musicians and listeners alike, with many labelling it ‘inauthentic’, ‘lazy’, and highlighting issues of potential copyright infringement and potential moral questions. There has been a noticeable spike in the prevalence of AI-generated artists, especially on social media which primarily focuses on short-form video context, such as TikTok and Instagram.
While there is a plethora of AI music which is unrecognisable to some, The Velvet Sundown has been the latest band to cause online controversy regarding the legitimacy of their music and even the members themselves. The indie folk band, amassing 276.1k monthly listeners as of October 2025, has released three albums within the span of two months, their song ‘Dust on the Wind’ going viral on social media. In their Spotify artist biography, they claim to be ‘not quite human. Not quite machine’, while revealing that ‘all characters, stories, music, voices and lyrics are original creations generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools employed as creative instruments’. The band has also collaborated with other artists which appear to be AI-generated, namely Moonshine Outlaws, The Crimson Sunbeams, and The Whiskey Mustangs; all of which appear to use generated visuals, lyrics, and vocals; even the band titles themselves appear to seem uninspired and stereotypical at best.
As of September 2025, Spotify has now planned to implement rules regarding ‘AI Protections’, in a bid to ease concerns amongst the music industry; they describe AI as ‘degrad[ing] the human experience for listeners and often attempt[ing] to divert royalties to bad actors’. They plan to introduce three core policies, promising more to be released in the near future to work in-line with the evolution of AI.
An impersonation policy is their first venture, which hopes to clarify AI voice clones and ‘give artists stronger protections and clear recourse’. Spotify has made it clear that they stand for artists and their integrity, whilst also continuing to promote the licensing of voices to ‘AI projects’. Whilst attempting to take a positive stance for the artists, it also feels as though Spotify are still pandering to those who are using AI.
Spotify is also introducing a ‘music spam filter’, which will identify bad actors attempting to upload ‘slop’ clogging up their software. By this, they aim to penalise those who are abusing the system and ensuring that genuine artists are protected. They state that ‘we’ll be rolling the system out conservatively over the coming months’, but this seems entirely ineffective considering how quickly people are releasing AI-generated music. It is also unclear when they will be rolling this out.
One of the key points which a lot of people are intrigued about is the AI disclosure for music, with Spotify highlighting that ‘the industry needs a nuanced approach to AI transparency, not to be forced to classify every song as either ‘is AI’ or ‘not AI’’. They have announced that they are collaborating with other industry partners, including Labelcamp and Soundrop, in order to align the industry with a similar level of standard. Whilst this seems like a good step forward in holding those using AI in their work to account, there is little to no consequences for those who do not choose to abide by this system. There is no mention of what happens if artists do not abide by this, and it feels as though Spotify has not considered these potential loopholes.
Spotify’s plans are certainly aspirational as they are some of the first in the industry to tackle this forthcoming issue of AI. They promise to aid those ‘trailblazing songwriters and producers’ who feel helpless against the constant rise of Artificial Intelligence in the music industry. Yet, they seem to have viewed this as a blanket issue rather than something already deep-rooted in the music scene, and they fail to consider potential loopholes within their points. If they were to prioritise and actively work with these smaller artists, it would likely have more of a positive impact and help these artists to feel less isolated within this issue.