Proving that your music is not AI: the complete method
To prove that your music is not AI, the strongest approach is to show the creative process: DAW sessions, stems, successive versions, notes, and dated deposits. No single file is conclusive. It's the coherence of the whole that convinces a platform, jury, or client.
This page helps you gather these elements, respond calmly to an accusation, and organize your archives before an issue arises.
- Why AI suspicions are increasing
- What a detector can say, and what it cannot
- Elements that show human work
- Table: each proof, its strength, its limit
- Responding to an accusation, step by step
- If you have used AI for a part
- A simple archiving routine
- Mistakes that weaken a case
- What TuneLockr Does, and Does Not Do
- FAQ
Why AI suspicions are increasing
The volume of generated tracks has changed the way the public and platforms view things. According to an April 2026 report from AlternativeTo, Deezer receives nearly 75,000 AI-generated tracks per day, accounting for 44% of daily submissions.
Also according to this report, Deezer labels these tracks, excludes them from algorithmic recommendations and editorial playlists, and demonetizes listens deemed fraudulent.
Other players have set rules. On January 13, 2026, Bandcamp announced that music generated “entirely or largely” by AI is no longer allowed. The post adds that Bandcamp reserves the right to remove a track on mere suspicion.
In January 2026, IFPI Sweden excluded the track “Jag vet, du är inte min” by artist Jacub from the official Swedish chart. According to Music Business Worldwide, the publisher presented the project as human, with AI as a simple tool.
Awards follow the same logic. Since the regulation published on June 19, 2023, the Recording Academy indicates that a work with no human authorship cannot compete for the Grammy Awards.
For an honest artist, the consequence is simple: you may be asked to account. Better to have answers ready.
What a detector can say, and what it cannot
Detection tools provide a probability score, not a verdict. They can err in either direction. On Envato’s official forum, a thread titled “Human-made music flagged, AI-generated tracks go through” reports human tracks wrongly flagged.
A heavily produced mix, heavily corrected vocals, or bank sounds can disrupt analysis. Your defense should not rely on a detector, but on your own work traces.
Spotify acknowledges this in its own way. In its September 25, 2025 announcement on AI credits in DDEX format, the platform specifies that the absence of AI credit does not mean AI was not used.
For more on detection methods, visit our page detect AI music.
Elements that show human work
A handcrafted track leaves many traces. The goal is to keep them, date them, and be able to show them without revealing everything.
The DAW project and its backups
The session file (.als, .logicx, .flp, .ptx, .cpr...) contains tracks, automations, plugins, and often an automatic save history. Ableton, Logic, or FL Studio create dated backups that many producers forget.
Example: a beatmaker accused under a video can show his session with forty tracks, compressor settings, and backups spread over three weeks.
The stems, raw takes, and MIDI files
Failed vocal takes, guitar duplicates, metronome clicks, and MIDI files played on a keyboard are very telling. A generator delivers a finished result, rarely dozens of imperfect takes.
Keep raw unaffected takes, even those you didn't use.
Successive versions
Phone sketch, first version, mix 1, mix 2, master: this sequence tells the evolution of an idea. It shows choices, reversals, and corrections.
Example: a songwriter keeps the vocal memo of the chorus sung in the subway, then the piano-voice sketch, then the produced version.
Notes, lyric notebooks, and exchanges
Lyric drafts, chord grids, photos of annotated scores, messages with a co-author or sound engineer: all this completes the file.
Exchanges dated by a third party (email, messaging, collaboration platform) have the advantage of not depending solely on you.
Dated deposits
A deposit associates a date and a cryptographic fingerprint with a specific version of a file. It does not alone prove authorship. However, it documents that a version existed on a given date.
Depositing the sketch, then the final version, creates a timeline difficult to reconstruct afterward.
Table: each proof, its strength, its limit
| Element | What it shows | Limit | How to keep it |
|---|---|---|---|
| DAW session | Track-by-track construction, settings, plugins | Can be recreated afterward | Dated copies at each stage |
| Raw takes and MIDI | Human play, errors, variations | Bulky to archive | External drive and cloud |
| Successive versions | Idea evolution over time | Modifiable file dates | Clear naming and dated deposits |
| Memos, notebooks, scores | Origin of melody or text | Sometimes informal | Photos, memo exports |
| Exchanges with third parties | Dates held by an external service | Dispersed over several tools | PDF export of useful threads |
| TuneLockr Deposit | Date and SHA-256 fingerprint of a version | Does not alone determine ownership | Certificate kept with the project |
File dates on a computer can be easily modified. This is why elements held by a third party, like a deposit or an email, often carry more weight.
Responding to an accusation: proving your music is not AI step by step
An accusation often arrives via a comment, a distributor’s email, or an organizer’s message. Keep calm and follow a precise order.
- Read the exact rule invoked: “entirely AI,” “largely AI,” or simple declaration obligation do not require the same response.
- Note the date, the person you spoke with, and the method of the request. Take a screenshot.
- Gather three to five strong elements rather than a hundred files: a session screenshot, two raw takes, the sketch, and the deposit certificate.
- Offer a demonstration: open the session in a video call, replay a part, or sing the chorus a cappella.
- Share the files via a private, time-limited link, never in public.
- Stay factual and polite. A short and clear file is processed faster than a long plea.
Example: a rock band enrolled in a regional contest receives an email accusing them of generating their track. They send the session, a dated rehearsal video, and the sketch deposited six months earlier.
In case of a serious dispute, such as a catalog withdrawal or frozen revenues, consult an intellectual property attorney.
If you have used AI for a part
Many musicians use AI for a sketch, a drum idea, or vocal cleaning. In this case, the right strategy is not to deny but to document what is human.
In France, originality generally implies the imprint of an author's human personality.article L111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code grants a right to the author solely by virtue of his creation.
In the United States, the report of the US Copyright Office published on January 29, 2025 considers that prompts alone do not provide sufficient control. However, he acknowledges noticeable human contributions, selection, arrangement, and creative modifications.
Example: a composer who created a demo with Suno, then rewrote the melody and lyrics, should keep the demo and each step of rewriting.
Our guides trace human contributions and document an AI-assisted song detail the method. The comparison of AI music generators specifies what each tool offers.
A simple archiving routine
The best time to prepare your defense is before any accusation. A ten-minute routine per track is enough.
- Name your files with the date and stage: 2026-11-04_chorus_demo.wav.
- Save a copy of the session at each key stage: demo, arrangement, mix, master.
- Export voice memos and notebook photos into the project folder.
- Submit the demo and the final version to date these versions.
- Back everything up in two locations: an external drive and online storage.
Example: a film music composer delivers a track to an agency. He submits the delivered version and keeps the session, allowing him to respond if a client doubts the origin of the piece.
For an overview of useful habits, read how to protect your music.
Mistakes that weaken a case
A sincere file can lose credibility due to a few blunders. Here are the most common ones among independent artists.
- Exporting a “fake” session afterwards: a project recreated the day before, with no backup copies or failed takes, raises more doubts than it resolves.
- Sending a public link to all your stems: you lose control of the files, sometimes to the person accusing you.
- Denying any software assistance when you used an AI tool for voice cleaning or a rhythm idea: inconsistency ruins trust.
- Relying solely on a favorable detector score: another tool might give the opposite result.
- Responding in anger publicly: keep a factual tone and address the matter privately.
Example: an electronic music producer used AI stem separation to isolate an old recording of his own band. He states this upfront, shows the original recording and the progression of his session. His transparency makes the rest of the file credible.
The golden rule is simple: what you claim must exactly match what your files show.
What TuneLockr Does, and Does Not Do
TuneLockr allows you to deposit a file version: audio, lyrics, score, or other. Each deposit associates a date, an SHA-256 fingerprint, and deposit information with this version, with a certificate.
This certificate helps establish a timeline and can be kept among useful items in case of a dispute. It does not, by itself, determine the definitive ownership of rights.
- What TuneLockr does: date your successive versions, produce a certificate, share a file via a free private link, independent of the deposit.
- What TuneLockr does not do: prove a piece is human, certify the absence of AI, replace SACEM or a lawyer.
- An AI detection feature is announced, but it is not yet available.
The first filing is offered without a credit card. This information is general and does not constitute individualized legal advice.
FAQ
Is a deposit certificate enough to prove that his music is not AI?
No. The certificate dates a version and its fingerprint. It says nothing about the creation method. It becomes useful combined with the session, raw takes, and prior versions.
Do the metadata of my audio files matter?
They can help, but they are easily edited. Elements dated by a third-party service, like an email or a deposit, are generally more convincing.
Should I show my stems to a stranger accusing me in a comment?
You are not obliged to. You can publish a short video of the session without sharing the files. Reserve the files for those making a decision, via a private link.
Can a distributor remove my track on mere suspicion?
Some foresee it in their rules, like Bandcamp in its January 13, 2026 post. Read your distributor's terms and respond with a brief file. In case of prolonged blockage, a lawyer can guide you.