What Does "Undisclosed Training Data Licensing" Mean?
This rejection means our content review system flagged that your release may contain audio or artwork created with a generative AI service that has not publicly disclosed how its training data was licensed. Even if the output sounds 100% human or passes an AI detector, the issue is not about whether the track sounds artificial, it's about the legal rights behind the AI model that helped create it.
InterSpace Distribution requires that any AI-assisted content comes from tools whose developers have clearly documented that they used properly licensed training data (for example, data obtained with consent from rights holders). When a service cannot or will not disclose this information, we cannot accept the content for distribution, because the ownership and copyright status of the final work may be unclear.
Why Was My Release Rejected?
You might see a message like: "This release contains AI-generated content from a service that has not disclosed its training data licensing, and cannot be distributed." This can happen even if:
- You recorded every instrument yourself in a DAW like BandLab.
- An AI detector marked the audio as 100% human.
- You only used AI for a small part, such as an effect or a cover art element.
The rejection is not a judgment on your creativity or effort. It simply means that somewhere in the production chain, a tool was used whose training data origins are not transparent enough to meet our distribution requirements.
Common Scenarios and Misunderstandings
"I recorded everything live in BandLab, no AI at all."
BandLab offers built-in AI features (like SongStarter or AI mastering). If any of these were used, the rejection may be linked to BandLab's own AI tools. Even if you only used the paid version, the AI component's training data disclosure might not meet our requirements. Check which features you used and whether BandLab has provided public documentation about their training data licensing.
"The AI detector said it's 100% human, but a human reviewer still flagged it."
Our review process combines automated checks with human evaluation. A human reviewer may identify patterns, artifacts, or metadata that suggest an undisclosed AI tool was involved, even if an AI detector did not. This is not about punishing you; it's about protecting your rights and ensuring the release can be distributed without legal risk.
"I can send a screen recording of my production process."
That's a great idea! If you believe your track was created entirely without AI, or only with AI tools that have proper licensing disclosures, a screen recording of your DAW session can help our support team verify your workflow. However, if an undisclosed AI tool was used at any stage, the recording alone may not override the licensing requirement.
"My cover art was rejected for AI assistance, but I don't have any live singles under review."
Cover art is reviewed as part of the release. If the artwork was created or enhanced using an AI image generator that hasn't disclosed its training data licensing, the entire release can be blocked, even if the audio is completely human-made. This is why you might not see a separate "under review" status for the art; it's all part of the same submission.
How to Resolve This Rejection
Follow these steps to get your release back on track:
- Identify the AI tool(s) used. List every AI service involved in your audio or artwork, whether for generation, mixing, mastering, or effects.
- Check the tool's training data policy. Visit the provider's website and look for a public statement about how their training data was sourced. Does it explicitly say they used only licensed or public-domain data? If not, the tool likely does not meet our requirements.
- Replace or remove the AI-generated content. If the tool's licensing is undisclosed, you have two options:
- Re-create the affected parts using a tool that clearly documents its training data (e.g., some services now offer "ethically trained" models).
- Remove the AI-generated elements entirely and resubmit a fully human-made version.
- If you believe the rejection is a mistake, gather evidence. For audio, a screen recording of your DAW session showing the original tracks, plugins, and edits can help. For artwork, provide layered source files or a time-lapse of the creation process. Then contact our support team with this evidence.
- Resubmit your release. Once you've either replaced the AI tool or confirmed that no undisclosed AI was used, upload the corrected files and submit again.
What If My Content Is 100% Human-Made?
If you are certain that no AI tool was used at any stage (including AI-assisted mixing, mastering, or cover art generation), the rejection may be a false positive. In that case, please reach out to our support team directly. Provide as much detail as possible about your production process, and include any screen recordings or project files that demonstrate the work is entirely human-created. Our team will review your case and help clear the rejection.
Need More Help?
Every situation is unique, and we cannot provide specific timelines or guarantee outcomes in this article. For personalized assistance, please contact our support team through your InterSpace Distribution account. They can review your release, explain the exact AI tool that triggered the rejection, and guide you through the next steps.