Artistic or satirical work is not exempt but attenuated, and the informative character always prevails

Point (119) of the guidelines of 20 July 2026 describes an attenuated transparency obligation for deep fakes forming part of evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works or programmes, where the obligation is limited to disclosure in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work. Point (120) describes the categories: artistic works are created for the purpose of art, including music, cinematographic works and visual arts; creative works involve creative choices, while works mainly motivated by functional or technical considerations cannot be regarded as creative; satirical works are intended to criticise society, politics, business or public figures through humoristic techniques; fictional works involve persons, objects, places, entities or events in an imaginary but verisimilitude setting; analogous works share core traits with those categories without fitting neatly into one. Point (122) states that it must be evident to the natural persons exposed to it that the content falls within one of those categories, that the categories must therefore be interpreted strictly given the lighter disclosure regime and the interests of freedom of expression and freedom of the arts and sciences, and that content whose nature is potentially unclear or ambiguous to the audience falls outside this lighter regime. Relevant factors, per that same point, are whether the content displays formats or styles characteristic of the category, the context in which it is presented, and audience expectations. That same point excludes content whose nature is exclusively informative or commercial and recognisable as such, citing news reporting, notes that advertisements or documentaries may be regarded as evidently creative or fictional in certain specific situations but not in others because the assessment is case-specific, and states that where the deep fake combines multiple characters, for example informative and creative, the informative character should always prevail and the standard labelling requirements apply. Point (123) stresses that these deep fakes are not excluded from the obligation: the deployer must still disclose the AI origin or manipulation, but may do so in an appropriate manner, and must in any case comply with Article 50(5). Point (124) states that reliance on the attenuated obligation cannot justify failing to respect the fundamental rights of individuals or the rights of rightsholders under Union intellectual property or data protection law. As examples within the categories the document cites movies featuring AI de-aged existing actors or digital replicas of deceased actors, AI-generated music in the style of existing artists, and an AI-manipulated image of an existing politician in a scene clearly meant as humorous criticism. Outside the categories the document places among others an AI-manipulated video in the style of a teleshopping channel, AI-generated images of celebrities implying involvement in activities that never happened, and an AI-manipulated video featuring a realistic synthetic influencer focused solely on displaying a sponsored product's functionalities.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.1.3, points (119) to (124) and the accompanying example listspraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source

Two misconceptions dominate here. The first is that 'creative work' is an exemption. It is not: you must still disclose, only in a way that does not ruin the work, for example in the credits, in an accompanying notice, or at the start of the video rather than as a permanent block across the image. The second misconception is more serious and hits marketing directly. Advertising is not automatically creative work. The guidelines cite teleshopping-style videos and synthetic influencers demonstrating a product precisely as examples falling outside the category, and further state that where characters mix, the informative one always prevails. So anyone making a funny, clearly stylised campaign that also carries a product claim falls back on the standard label. Finally, note the evidence requirement: if the audience could doubt whether it is seeing satire or real news, it is by definition not evident and the lighter regime does not apply.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.1.3, points (119) to (124) and the accompanying example listspraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source

Assess per production whether the work is unmistakably artistic, satirical or fictional for your audience, and briefly record that assessment against the three factors in point (122): stylistic features, publication context and audience expectation. For campaigns and commercial video, default to the standard label and rely on the lighter regime only in rare cases. For evidently creative work, choose a disclosure that leaves the work intact, for example at the start or in the credits, bearing in mind that the information must be clear and distinguishable and that people joining later must also be able to perceive it.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.1.3, points (119) to (124) and the accompanying example listspraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source