Skip to main content
AI MUSIC
DETECTOR / LAB

AI Music Detector / Reference

AI music rules, platform by platform

A breakdown of where disclosure is genuinely required, where it's merely encouraged, and what none of these services can determine from the audio alone.

Last updated August 2026

Quick answer

Do streaming platforms allow AI-generated music?

For the most part, yes. No major streaming service bans AI-assisted music outright — they regulate behaviour and metadata instead. Distributors ask an AI-involvement question at upload, YouTube requires a synthetic-content label wherever viewers could be misled, and Deezer tags fully generated uploads and limits how far they travel editorially. Takedowns follow impersonation, artificial streaming and rights conflicts, not the method of composition.

What a detector cannot establish →

Each platform, in a nutshell

Spotify

AI-assisted music isn't banned. Enforcement effort goes toward artificial streaming, spam uploads and impersonation — not how the track was composed.

  • What is asked of you: No checkbox exists in the app itself. Disclosure reaches Spotify indirectly, through your distributor's credits and AI-involvement fields, which then flow into shared industry metadata.
  • What actually causes trouble: Bulk uploads of near-identical tracks, streaming-farm behaviour, or a voice imitating a named artist.

YouTube

AI-assisted content is allowed, but disclosure kicks in wherever synthetic media might mislead a viewer about real people or events.

  • What is asked of you: Flip the altered-or-synthetic content toggle during upload when it applies, and separately follow the rules around singing-voice likeness.
  • What actually causes trouble: A cloned singing voice belonging to an identifiable artist — that has its own takedown route, separate from copyright entirely.

Does YouTube detect AI music?

DistroKid, TuneCore, CD Baby

All three accept AI-assisted releases, and this is where the disclosure question genuinely gets asked, since they control the metadata that stores receive.

  • What is asked of you: Answer the AI-involvement question truthfully at upload, and keep every contributor's credit accurate.
  • What actually causes trouble: A false answer tends to resurface later as a metadata dispute — and account-level penalties are far worse than a single rejected release.

Apple Music

Cares about audio quality, accurate credits and impersonation — not the method used to generate a track.

  • What is asked of you: Accurate credits, and no attribution that implies a real artist performed.
  • What actually causes trouble: Releasing under a name that suggests a real artist was involved.

Deezer

Has publicly stated it tags fully AI-generated uploads and keeps them off certain editorial and recommendation surfaces.

  • What is asked of you: Nothing extra from you — but expect classification to happen without being asked.
  • What actually causes trouble: Lower discovery rather than removal, which is a quiet outcome easy to mistake for a release simply underperforming.

SoundCloud, Bandcamp

Relaxed about method, firm about rights. Bandcamp especially is a direct-to-fan space where an undisclosed AI release damages trust more than any rule could.

  • What is asked of you: An honest description. Fans actually read it.
  • What actually causes trouble: Reputational fallout rather than a policy violation.

What all six rows actually agree on

Line the policies up and three things stand out. First: method isn't the offence, misrepresentation is. Second: the record that matters is metadata and credits, filled in by you at distribution — not a measurement pulled from the master. Third: voice gets treated differently from music. A synthetic instrumental is just a release; a synthetic version of a recognisable singer has its own dedicated removal path on several services.

That's also why an acoustic score can't resolve a platform dispute on its own. Our own robustness testing found readings stable across repeat runs of the same clip but shifting by roughly 4.4 percentage points when the excerpt changed — see the benchmark. A number that moves depending on which fifteen seconds you feed it is a screening aid, not evidence.

Before you release anything, do this

  1. Answer the distributor’s AI-involvement question honestly, and credit every human contributor by name and role. The disclosure generator writes the wording for you.
  2. Hold onto the project file, the stems, and at least one dated rough mix. Nothing else settles a challenge as quickly.
  3. Don’t release a voice imitating an identifiable artist, even as a tribute. It's the single most consistently enforced rule on this page.
  4. Receiving music rather than making it? Use the intake process for labels and sync instead of leaning on a score.
  5. Check the current terms of whichever platform you're releasing on. These rules shift faster than any page describing them.

Questions people ask

Do I have to disclose that I used AI to make a song?

Depends where it ends up. Distributors ask an AI-involvement question that feeds store metadata, and YouTube requires a synthetic-content label wherever a viewer could be misled about real people. No major music service bans AI-assisted composition outright today. Answer whatever you're asked truthfully — that's what actually protects your account.

Can Spotify or YouTube tell that a track was AI generated?

Neither publishes a per-track acoustic verdict, and no classifier available today is reliable enough to serve as one. Enforcement follows behaviour and metadata — upload volume, streaming patterns, credits, voice-likeness complaints — far more than any audio measurement of how a track was made.

What actually gets a release taken down?

Impersonating an identifiable artist's voice, artificial streaming, rights conflicts, and duplicate or spam uploads. Generation method by itself is rarely the trigger — most releases that get pulled fall into one of those four buckets, not 'used a generator'.

Will a detector score satisfy a platform?

No. A probability from any tool, ours included, is an estimate drawn from signal characteristics — not evidence a platform will act on. Disputes get resolved by provenance: stems, project files, dated drafts and clean credits.

Do these rules change?

Often, and unevenly from one territory to the next. Treat this page as a map of the general shape of things and check the platform's current terms before a release that matters to you. What stays constant is that accurate metadata and kept project files protect you no matter which version of the policy is in force.

Want a reading to go alongside the paperwork? Run a free check — audio is held only for the length of the request and is never stored.