TIDAL cuts royalties on AI-generated music: the end of artificial monetization?

What happened?

TIDAL, the streaming service owned by Square (Jack Dorsey), has updated its terms to demonetize any track generated entirely by artificial intelligence. According to The Next Web, AI-created songs will not generate royalties from streaming, direct fan sales, or any other form of monetization on the platform. Additionally, TIDAL will implement automated tools to identify and label these tracks, and will remove those that attempt to impersonate real artists. The decision, announced in June 2025, comes after months of pressure from record labels and artists who denounced the proliferation of low-quality synthetic content that saturated catalogs and diverted revenue from human creators.

Why is it important?

This decision positions TIDAL as the first major streaming platform to take a firm stance against AI-generated music, in a context where the volume of artificial tracks is growing exponentially. According to industry data, in 2024 more than 100 million songs were uploaded to platforms, of which an estimated 10% to 15% were generated wholly or partially by AI. The measure seeks to protect human artists from unfair competition and impersonation, but also raises technical and legal challenges: how to distinguish between an AI-assisted work and one completely generated by AI? What happens to tracks that use AI as a creative tool but maintain significant human control? TIDAL has not yet published the exact technical criteria that its detection systems will use, creating uncertainty in the creator community.

Consequences for the industry

• For human artists: temporary relief from the threat of being displaced by cheap synthetic content. However, the measure does not address the underlying problem: catalog saturation. According to a study by the University of Music Berlin, 60% of independent artists believe AI has already negatively affected their streaming income.
• For AI creators: they lose a legitimate monetization channel, which could redirect innovation toward more collaborative uses or toward platforms that accept this content, such as SoundCloud or Bandcamp, which have not yet adopted similar policies. Companies like Boomy, which allow generating songs with AI, could see their business model reduced if other platforms follow TIDAL's example.
• For other platforms: Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music are watching closely. Spotify already removed tens of thousands of AI-generated tracks that inflated streams in 2023, but had not demonetized the content. If TIDAL proves that demonetization reduces catalog pollution, they could follow suit. Apple Music, on the other hand, has been more cautious and has not yet announced concrete measures.
• For the recording industry: the need for clear standards on AI labeling and attribution in music is reinforced. The IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) has urged platforms to adopt uniform labeling, but there is still no global consensus.

What should readers know?

TIDAL's policy is not an absolute ban: it only affects tracks that are completely generated by AI. Works that use AI as an auxiliary tool (e.g., for mastering or suggestions) will likely not be affected. The key will be the implementation of detection systems, which must be accurate to avoid false positives. For now, TIDAL has not detailed the exact technical criteria it will use. In its statement, the company mentions it will employ "automated tools" and "human review" to identify infringing content, but does not specify whether it will use third-party solutions, such as those from French startup Auddly, or develop its own technology.

"TIDAL is cutting off the money supply for AI-generated music," notes The Next Web. The company will also label each detected track with a badge indicating its artificial origin, so users can make informed decisions. Additionally, TIDAL has updated its terms of service to explicitly prohibit identity impersonation via AI, allowing it to quickly remove content that imitates real artists without their consent.

Historical context

The debate over AI in music is not new. In April 2023, a song titled "Heart on My Sleeve," which imitated the voices of Drake and The Weeknd using AI, went viral on TikTok and Spotify before being removed for copyright violations. This incident prompted the recording industry to pressure platforms to take action. That same year, Universal Music Group sent letters to Spotify and Apple Music demanding they block AI services from accessing their catalogs. Since then, services like Spotify have removed tens of thousands of AI-generated tracks that inflated streams via bots. TIDAL's measure goes a step further by directly attacking the business model of AI-generated music, demonetizing it rather than simply removing it after publication. This approach could be more effective in deterring creators of synthetic content, as it removes the primary economic incentive.

Speculation and open questions

It is unclear how TIDAL will handle borderline cases, such as tracks that combine human recordings with AI-generated arrangements. For example, a producer who records a real voice but uses AI to create the instrumentation could face demonetization if the platform considers the track "completely generated by AI." It is also unknown whether the policy will apply retroactively to already published songs. The company has not confirmed whether it will use third-party tools or develop its own. Legal controversies are likely if AI creators challenge the measure for technological discrimination, arguing it violates freedom of expression or that the definition of "completely generated by AI" is too vague. Moreover, the effectiveness of the measure will depend on the accuracy of detection systems: if they generate false positives, they could harm legitimate artists who use AI as part of their creative workflow. Finally, it remains to be seen whether other platforms will adopt similar policies or if TIDAL will stand alone in this stance, which could affect its market share compared to more permissive competitors.