No products in the cart.
Bandcamp has taken a stance. And within our electronic music scene, where AI-generated music is increasingly seeping into streaming and sales platforms, this statement is far from insignificant.
In a statement titled Keeping Bandcamp Human, the platform now states that it prohibits any music or audio content “generated wholly or substantially by AI tools.” A clear and deliberate line, aimed at preserving what Bandcamp has claimed since its inception: maintaining a direct, human and equitable relationship between artists and audiences.
It’s a political stance rather than a simple rule
Unlike other platforms that approach AI as a neutral or inevitable innovation, Bandcamp adopts an openly cultural and political position. Music is described not as a product, but as the result of a long-standing human dialogue rooted in communities, histories and collective practices.
Within this logic, generative AI is not merely a technical tool. It represents a rupture in the implicit contract between artists and fans, blurring the boundary between human creation, automation and imitation.
Bandcamp also specifies that it prohibits any use of AI intended to imitate existing artists or recognisable styles, aligning with its existing rules on impersonation and intellectual property.
BUT, how?
Yet behind the announcement, one central question remains: how will this policy actually be enforced?
Bandcamp says it reserves the right to remove any content “suspected” of being AI-generated and encourages users to report the tracks in question. No automated detection methods are detailed, and no precise threshold is defined to determine what constitutes a work “largely” generated by AI.
Today, hybrid tools are multiplying — with AI being used for sound design, mastering, the generation of stems or ideas — leaving the line between assistance and substitution increasingly blurred. Bandcamp also does not clarify how false positives will be handled, nor how an artist might prove the human origin of their work.
Bandcamp has always gone against the grain of the industry
This position clearly contrasts with that of other major players in the sector. Beatport, for example, allows AI-generated music as long as it complies with copyright rules and does not directly imitate existing artists. Spotify, meanwhile, does not ban AI outright, instead removing certain content only when it violates policies on deception or copyright.
Where many platforms think in terms of volume, optimisation and flow, Bandcamp continues to defend an artisanal, community-driven vision of music. A stance that aligns with its economic model, but one that is also more fragile within an ecosystem dominated by automation.
It remains to be seen whether this ban will set a real precedent or remain a symbolic gesture. Without clear tools or transparency around enforcement procedures, the policy currently relies largely on artists’ good faith… and the vigilance of the community.
Bandcamp says it intends to communicate updates to this policy as generative AI continues to evolve. The credibility of this stance will therefore be tested over time, through the consistency between discourse and practice, and the platform’s ability to protect human creativity without falling into arbitrariness.
Ultimately, Bandcamp raises a simple but fundamental question: what are we really trying to preserve when we talk about music?