The Scoop: Record labels press streaming platforms to identify AI-generated songs

A coalition of record-label and artist groups is urging streaming platforms, such as Spotify and Apple Music, to add tags to music generated with artificial intelligence.

The group is proposing two distinct labels: One would identify tracks that are fully generated by AI. The other would identify AI-assisted tracks created primarily by humans.

“Fans want to know whether and how generative AI has been used in the music to which they listen,” members of the coalition said in a joint statement. “Given how important human artistry and authenticity is to music lovers all over the world, these labels will provide an immediately understandable and easily scalable approach to transparency.”

The group acknowledges the many ways AI is being used creatively and that that’s a good thing, but argues transparency is crucial. If implemented, the AI labels would function similar to how explicit-content warnings appear on streaming tracks.

“We expect to offer fans additional information as adoption of generative AI labeling grows and technology evolves,” reads the statement, which notes that more than one-third of tracks uploaded to Apple Music in recent times are “100% AI.”

Why it matters: As AI continues to become a growing aspect of life, from how people conduct research online to what they watch in their spare time, companies need to be careful not to come across as adamantly anti-AI.

Sure, the stance will win over some consumers, but it’ll alienate others. Given the rate at which AI is advancing, the positioning will certainly close the door to future developments that many consumers may find appealing. It’s a dangerous bet to make.

That’s why, for now, a safer route for brands wary of the technology is to push for transparency. In other words, let consumers decide if they want to consume the content or not. Indeed, the word “transparency” appears six times in the coalition’s press release.

The nuance between labels identifying AI-generated and AI-assisted also communicates that the coalition understands the complexity involved in creating things in 2026.

This touch reinforces the idea that the labels are designed to neither praise nor condemn. The point is to disclose.

Why Europe might soon bar children from social media

Experts delivered a report to the European Commission advising the European Union to restrict access to social media for children under the age of 13 unless they are supervised by an adult, according to The New York Times.

The report also recommended that teenagers between the ages of 13 and 18 should only have access to social platforms that have implemented safety features, such as limits on infinite scrolling. Additional research in the report noted that toddlers under the age of three should have no screen time at all.

“It is very clear that we need age-appropriate restrictions to platforms,” said Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. “This is not about whether children can access social media. It is about whether and when social media can access our children.”

If the 27-nation European Union moves forward with setting age limits for apps such as TikTok and Instagram, it would signal a major shift for brands around the world that have come to rely on social media to reach younger consumers.

Unilever, for example, now claims to work with around 300,000 creators, up from just 10,000 two years prior.

Budgets may need to shift. Other channels may need more exploring.

Does LinkedIn have more AI-generated content than other social platforms?

Recent research from Pangram Labs, a startup that detects AI-generated writing, suggests LinkedIn is the official home of AI slop.

When it comes to longform posts, 41% of written content seen by users on LinkedIn was flagged as likely being AI-generated. That’s a much higher rate than what Pangram found on X (29%), Reddit (13%) and Substack (10%).

Overall, the research found longer content posted on social media (defined as content containing more than 250 words) was more likely to come from AI than shortform content (between 50 and 250 words).

This is bad news for thought leaders and subject matter experts trying to build a following on LinkedIn. As much doubt and suspicion already swirls around online content that doesn’t quite feel right, this research will only raise the level of distrust. Individuals and brands who tend to write long should make sure that what they’re saying is creative, authentic and, most importantly, coming from them.

As Max Spero, the CEO of Pangram, put it during an interview with 404 Media: “AI content is a tax on readers’ time.”

Is Buc-ee’s going too far to protect its mascot?

While every brand needs to protect its unique identity — see Patagonia versus Pattie Gonia — some people worry the popular rest-stop chain Buc-ee’s is taking things too far.

Buc-ee’s, which features a cartoon beaver as a mascot, has been busy suing similar businesses that also have cartoon animal mascots, such as moose and koala bear, The Wall Street Journal reported.

“Behind the friendly, cap-wearing Beaver with the goofy smile is a hit-style trademark enforcement legal team that is slowly taking-out cartoon animals one by one,” Alice Denenberg, a trademark attorney, wrote in a LinkedIn post.

Reputation-wise, it’s a fine line to walk. On one hand, Buc-ee’s needs to fend off copycats. It’s worked hard to achieve its current level of success. On the other hand, no one appreciates a bully who appears eager to run over smaller competitors. That’s a quick way to lose customers.

“I’m perplexed by Buc-ee’s extremely aggressive position,” Denenberg told The Journal.