What can I do if my track has been labelled as AI-generated, blocked or demonetised?

You have just discovered that one of your tracks carries an "AI-generated" tag, that your distributor has refused to send it to streaming platforms, or that it has stopped earning any money. Yet you made that track, and you have the session files to show it. Nobody seems able to tell you who made the decision or how to challenge it.

This guide was written for that moment. It covers what we were able to verify as of the date shown above. Platform rules change often, so check the linked sources before you act. It does not constitute legal advice.

Labelled, blocked or demonetised

The phrase "my track was flagged as AI" can refer to three distinct situations, each involving a different decision-maker and calling for a different response.

A track labelled on a streaming platform

The track is available, but it carries an AI tag and, in most cases, no longer appears in recommendations. The platform makes that decision. Deezer runs every delivery through its own detector, and fully AI-generated tracks are "automatically removed from algorithmic recommendations and do not appear in editorial playlists" (our translation) (Deezer newsroom, 29/01/2026). On Deezer, the tag appears at album level rather than on the individual track. Apple Music works differently. A Transparency Tag appears only if your label or distributor has declared the use of AI, since Apple "defers to content providers to determine what qualifies as AI-generated content" (Music Business Worldwide, 04/03/2026). Start by establishing whether the tag came from a detector or from a box ticked somewhere in the process of delivering your music.

A track blocked at distribution

Here, the track never reached the platforms. Believe and TuneCore announced on 30/04/2026 that they automatically block tracks they identify as partly or fully produced using unlicensed AI generators, which they call "pirate studios". They rely on detection they describe as "99% reliable" at identifying the model used (Music Business Worldwide, 30/04/2026). Other distributors run their own checks or require a declaration when you upload a track. In this case the distributor makes the decision, and it is also the only party you can contact.

A demonetised track

The track remains available, but it no longer generates royalties or income from direct sales to fans. Since 29/06/2026, releases that TIDAL classifies as entirely AI-generated have been ineligible for royalties or fan payments. Since mid-July, they have also carried a visible "AI" badge (The Next Web, 29/06/2026; TIDAL, AI Policy). Here too, the platform makes the decision.

Before taking action, note which situation applies to you, which platform is involved and when you noticed the problem, with screenshots to back it up.

Who to contact

Every published procedure directs you to your distributor first. Deezer's creator support asks artists to contact their distributor, which then passes the matter on to Deezer. If there is no reply within five working days, the artist can open a ticket through the help centre, attaching the correspondence (Deezer for Creators, accessed on 02/10/2026). iMusician, itself a distributor, gives similar advice, saying that "it's advisable to contact your distributor first", while reminding artists that "the final decision lies with the streaming platform itself" (iMusician, 11/08/2026).

You have to go through the distributor because it holds the contract to deliver your music. Platforms do not generally deal directly with artists without a record label. The distributor is the company they work with, and it can resubmit your track, correct its metadata or take your appeal to the platform. It cannot override a platform's decision, but without it your appeal has nowhere to go.

The table below summarises what we were able to document as of 02/10/2026.

There is no common procedure at present. iMusician acknowledges this when it notes that "there is no standardized industry-wide appeals process" for artists challenging the flagging of their music (11/08/2026). Almost all existing procedures tell you where to write without specifying what evidence is accepted, and none says how long you will have to wait. LabelGrid has been the exception since 21/10/2026, asking anyone who appeals a rejection for the release ID, the rejection reason and proof of rights.

Evidence to gather

Apart from LabelGrid, no service has published a list of accepted evidence. iMusician recommends keeping "DAW project files, stems, session exports, and any dated drafts or versions of your work" (11/08/2026), which provides a starting point.

• Your DAW session, meaning the project in your digital audio workstation, with its creation and modification dates intact. Do not tidy it up before sending it, because its untidiness is part of the evidence.
• The separate tracks exported from that project, one per voice or instrument (stems, which group several tracks together, say less), along with the raw takes as they came out of the microphone or instrument before any editing, failed takes included, with their original timestamps.
• Dated drafts, including intermediate exports (bounces), voice memos or demos sent by email or messaging app.
• Rehearsal or studio recordings, phone videos and photographs of the session.
• Credits and contracts establishing who played, sang, wrote, mixed or mastered the track, together with studio invoices, split sheets and any registration with your collecting society.
• A list of the plugins, virtual instruments (VSTs) and sound libraries you used, with the licences for any samples you included.
• A simple record of any AI tools you actually used and what you used them for (see below). It is better to provide this before anyone asks.

It is safest to document your work before releasing it. Once a track has been flagged, you have to reconstruct the process under pressure. Exporting your tracks and archiving your project on the day you finish a track takes ten minutes and costs nothing, leaving everything ready before any questions arise.

Writing the request

Keep your request brief, factual and courteous. The person reading it handles many cases and did not make the decision. The template below is roughly 120 words long and can be adapted to your situation.

Subject: Request for review of the AI tag on "[Track title]" (ISRC [code])

Hello,

On [date], the track "[title]" (ISRC [code], released on [date] via [distributor]) was [tagged as AI-generated / blocked at distribution / demonetised] on [platform]. I am the track's songwriter and performer. It was written, recorded and produced by [names] between [date] and [date], at [place].

I have attached the DAW session with its original timestamps, the exported stems, [number] dated drafts and the credits. [If applicable: the AI tool [name] was used for [specific task, for example noise reduction on one vocal take]; no part of the audio was generated by AI.]

Could you review this decision, or let me know what further evidence you need and when I can expect a reply?

Thank you in advance. [Name, contact details]

The ISRC, or International Standard Recording Code, is your recording's unique identifier.

A complete, dated request carries more weight than a string of exasperated messages. Avoid accusing the platform, arguing about its detector's accuracy or sending twenty emails. Keep a copy of everything you send.

When AI played a part in the work

More and more artists use AI tools at some stage, whether for mastering, stem separation, a drum pattern or a vocal effect. Most platforms still make a binary distinction between music that is "fully AI-generated" and music that is not, although some draw finer distinctions. TIDAL says that artists who use AI tools to complement human work are not affected by its demonetisation policy. Traxsource distinguishes "AI-Assisted" music, "created as part of a human-led creative process", from music "created entirely using Generative AI" (Record of the Day, 24/06/2026). Spotify's AI Credits, in beta since 16/04/2026, let distributors declare AI involvement separately for vocals, instrumentation and post-production (Spotify newsroom, update to the post of 25/09/2025).

Copyright law is drawing the same line. In France, the mission report on the status of AI productions by the Higher Council for Literary and Artistic Property (CSPLA), published on 16/07/2026, distinguishes "hybrid creation", in which humans retain a creative role and which may qualify for copyright protection if the originality threshold is met, from "synthetic production", generated without significant human intervention and which remains outside the scope of copyright (French Ministry of Culture, 16/07/2026).

Most future disputes will concern hybrid creation, and this is also where being precise about your work protects you best. State exactly which tools you used and where you used them, identifying which of the following three categories your work falls into.

• Human creation means that no generative AI was involved in either the audio or the writing. Conventional tools such as EQ, compression, pitch correction and sample libraries are not treated as generative AI by any of the platforms we have studied.
• AI-assisted describes work created through a human-led process in which an AI tool contributed to a specific part, such as AI mastering, a generated texture in one section or vocals cleaned up using AI. You must name the tool and identify the part of the work it contributed to.
• AI-generated applies when all or most of the audio was produced by a generative model from a prompt.

If your track is AI-assisted, say so in your request and in the metadata you submit for distribution, and explain exactly how AI was used. A vague "I barely used AI" sounds like a confession, whereas "the kick sample was generated with [tool], everything else was played and recorded" reads like a credit. Some distributors, however, block music made with certain generators regardless of how much human work has been added. Believe and TuneCore announced on 30/04/2026 that they reject tracks made partly or wholly using generators they have not licensed. In such cases, only the tool counts.

Timeframes and possible outcomes

We would like to tell you how long an appeal takes and how often it succeeds, but neither we nor anyone else can do so.

Response times remain unknown. Apart from Deezer's five working days before you can follow up, none of the platforms or distributors we have studied publishes a response time for AI-related appeals. Without a common procedure, each uses its own channel and terminology, so what works on Deezer tells you nothing about TIDAL.

The outcome is not guaranteed either, because the platform relies on its own detector. Deezer, for example, reports 99.8% accuracy and fewer than 1 human track wrongly flagged in 10,000 (Deezer newsroom, 21/07/2026). To our knowledge, these figures supplied by Deezer have not been independently audited. They are not broken down by genre, language or production style, and do not tell you what will happen to your track.

A distribution block raises a different problem. When a distributor rejects a track because of the generator used, session files will make no difference. The only options left are to submit another version, change distributor or wait for its policy to change. And that does happen. On 08/09/2026, Believe announced a licensing deal with Suno, although it covers only a new model (Music Business Worldwide, 08/09/2026).

In practice, send one complete request, keep a record of everything and allow time for a response. If you hear nothing, one follow-up with the previous correspondence attached is enough. If your request is rejected without explanation, ask for the reason in writing.

Tell the observatory about your case

Every documented case helps the next artist, which is why VERIMUSIC's observatory of disputed decisions exists. Platforms publish figures while artists experience the decisions behind them, and no one has yet brought the two together.

If your track has been labelled, blocked or demonetised and you dispute the decision, tell us what happened. Include the platform and distributor involved, what you sent, the response you received and how long the process took. Your account can be anonymised if you prefer. We use these accounts to identify patterns. We will only publish your name with your consent, and your files are never published. If your appeal succeeded, tell us that too, because everyone needs to know which approaches work.

Report your case to the observatory

---

Sources accessed on 02/10/2026, CSPLA report on 13/10/2026. This text provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Quotations from French-language sources are our own translations.