Why this object hangs off that object

First determine which paragraph of Article 50 applies, then implement the specific transparency measure.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | transparency

Determine per channel whether the text is published to inform the public on matters of public interest, who performs the human review, who holds editorial responsibility, and which standard wording you use when the disclosure is required.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | transparency

For each AI system, walk through the distinct Article 50 scenarios (direct interaction, synthetic output, emotion recognition or biometric categorisation, deep fake, published text on matters of public interest) and record per paragraph whether it applies, does not apply or falls under an exception, with the reason.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | transparency

A voluntary route to comply with parts of Article 50, in two separately signable sections.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | transparency

The Commission works out the transparency duties and confirms they apply from 2 August 2026.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | transparency

The transparency duties apply since 2 August 2026.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | transparency

Systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026 must comply with Article 50(2) by 2 December 2026.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | timeline, transparency

Each quarter, sample the systems carrying an Article 50 scenario and verify in the production environment that the disclosure still appears and the marking is still present in the actual output, recording finding, owner and remediation deadline.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | transparency

Before release, test that the applicable disclosure, marking or label is timely, clear and technically effective.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | control, transparency

Dated record per interface and channel showing that the disclosure appears at the latest at first interaction or exposure, is clear and distinguishable, and passed the accessibility check, with screenshot, version number and tester identity.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | transparency

Record of scenario, actor, disclosure or marking, technical implementation, test and owner.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | evidence, transparency

Written statement from the supplier describing which marking is applied to the output, in which machine-readable format, how robust and interoperable the solution is, and whether the marking survives editing or export.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | transparency

A website automatically publishes AI-generated articles about European policy. There is an editorial charter on paper, but nobody reviews the substance. Before publication only a spell check runs, and a second AI model reviews the text.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A news site places an AI-generated summary beneath a journalist's article about a recent town council decision. The editor in chief reads the summary on substance, checks the facts and signs off for publication.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A recruiter deploys an AI chat that puts candidates through a first screening conversation after they respond to a job posting, and adds their answers to their CV. The chat introduces itself with a first name and writes in a casual conversational tone. The question is whether these applicants reasonably realise that they are talking to an AI system.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

An organisation admits staff through facial recognition at its access control gate and additionally runs a camera in the visitor area that sorts faces into age groups. Both applications run on the same biometric infrastructure and the same images. The question is which of the two requires the people involved to be actively informed.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A software company uses an AI assistant for code suggestions and code review, available only to professional developers. The same company also runs a helpdesk chatbot for customers.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A bank opens an AI-driven reporting portal where customers can flag suspected fraud around their payment account or loan. The system asks follow-up questions, categorises the report and routes it to fraud detection and, where money laundering signals appear, to the internal reporting team. Because the portal concerns criminal offences, the bank assumes the disclosure duty for direct AI interaction does not apply.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A municipality has an AI system write the web pages about a changed scheme for social assistance and allowances, meant to explain to citizens what they are entitled to. A communications officer reads the text for style and spelling and publishes it. The question is whether this public service thereby falls under the exception to the labelling duty.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

An organisation gives staff an internal AI assistant for HR, legal, procurement, compliance and IT questions. Must that assistant disclose at every turn that it is AI?

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A hospital deploys an interactive AI system used exclusively by properly trained health professionals to support medical diagnosis and suggest treatments. The question is whether the patient or the clinician must be told it is AI.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

An authority empowered by law to detect criminal offences wants to deploy an interactive AI system without telling those involved that they are communicating with AI.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A private individual uses a generative AI service to create a deep fake of themselves and their household for their own Christmas card, purely personal and with no business purpose.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A car company photographs an existing model and places it in an advertisement against a fully AI-generated background with an invented landscape. The car itself is untouched.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A webshop runs an AI chatbot for questions about orders, delivery and returns. The bot writes fluent prose, carries a staff profile picture, and nowhere does it say that no human is reading along.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

An organisation makes an internal AI assistant available for HR, procurement, IT and compliance questions. It sits behind the company login only, and staff have been trained in using AI.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A car manufacturer builds a generative AI system into the navigation unit that composes spoken and written route instructions. The output stays inside the vehicle and technical measures prevent it from being exported or shared.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A satirical outlet publishes an AI-manipulated image of an existing politician, placed in a scene that humorously criticises a policy decision. Style and context make it immediately clear that this is satire.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A publisher uses the same AI tool for two things: correcting spelling and cleaning up formatting in submitted pieces, and producing summaries and rewrites of those same pieces.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

A company has a realistic synthetic avatar of its own CEO deliver a new year message thanking employees for last year's results. The video goes to the intranet and to the company's social media channels.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | examples

An AI agent that makes bookings, handles correspondence or concludes contracts must identify itself as AI and state on whose behalf it is acting, including towards the person instructing it.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

For deep fakes in evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional work, the disclosure must not hamper the work, but it remains mandatory. Where the content mixes in an informative or commercial character, the standard label applies.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

Signing the code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content is voluntary and not signing is not in itself non-compliance. Those who do not sign must demonstrate compliance by other means, including a gap analysis against the code.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

Whoever publishes a deepfake must apply a label perceivable by humans. The watermark or metadata supplied by the provider does not discharge that duty.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

The notice that a person is dealing with an AI system must be given at the latest at the time of the first interaction. That moment applies per natural person, not once per system.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

No label is needed where the AI text has been substantively reviewed by a human and someone holds editorial responsibility. A spellcheck or a written editorial policy is not enough, and any AI intervention after sign-off voids the exception.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

A line in the terms and conditions, a hidden metadata mark or a vague word like 'assistant' will not do. The guidelines name five methods that are insufficient when used alone.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

Only the machine-readable marking under Article 50(2) has a transitional period for systems already on the market. Legacy content need not be labelled retroactively, but legacy text you publish now must be.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

The exception for obvious AI interaction must be interpreted restrictively. It applies only where almost no doubt remains for an average member of the intended and reasonably foreseeable audience.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

Spellchecking, formatting and minor image corrections fall outside the marking obligation. An AI summary, rewrite or face replacement falls inside it.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

The labelling duty for AI text applies only where three elements coincide: the text is published, is intended to inform the public, and concerns a matter of public interest.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Placed against the official source | guidance

Specific disclosure, marking and labelling duties for certain AI systems and synthetic content.

Placed against the official source | transparency

Public decision route for the distinct transparency obligations.

Hangs off: Article 50: transparency

Editorially reviewed | template, transparency