Article 50, and what this module does not do¶
This is not legal advice. The module records a decision and shows it. It does not make the decision and does not check it. Whether a given piece of content needs a label is the site's call, with its own counsel.
Two paragraphs, not one rule¶
Article 50(4) is two obligations with different preconditions. Which one applies depends on what the content is, so the module asks that first.
Paragraph 1 - image, audio or video that constitutes a deep fake. The obligation is unconditional: no publication test, and no exemption for human review. Where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous work, the obligation is limited to a disclosure made in a way that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work. That is a limit on the manner, not a way out: the label is still owed.
Paragraph 2 - text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. Both conditions must hold. The obligation does not apply where the content has undergone human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication.
What the module stores, and what it refuses to guess¶
The grade says how AI was involved. It does not say whether the law applies: that is four separate answers, recorded per content item, each one yes, no, or not assessed.
| Question | Used by |
|---|---|
| Is this image, audio or video that constitutes a deep fake, or is it text? | picks the paragraph |
| Is it part of an evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional work? | ¶1, sets the manner |
| Is it published to inform the public? | ¶2 |
| Does it concern matters of public interest? | ¶2 |
Nothing infers these answers. Not the content type, not the bundle, not the entity type, not the grade. An answer nobody gave stays "not assessed".
The verdict therefore has three values, and the third is not a polite "no":
- Required - the conditions of the applicable paragraph are met.
- Not required - a condition is answered no, or the ¶2 exemption applies.
- Not assessed - an answer is missing that would have changed the outcome.
A "no" on any one condition settles it, even with the others unanswered: a condition already false cannot be rescued by the rest. The ¶2 exemption settles it the same way. So "not assessed" never means "we did not fill in the form" - it means the form still holds a question that matters.
Answering once instead of every time¶
The answers live on the content item, and on the profile as the default for a whole bundle. A profile that says "text, published to inform the public, on matters of public interest" answers for everything that inherits it, on any entity type. Answer there first; use the content item for the exceptions.
Answers are inherited as one block. The level that supplies the grade supplies all four answers - mixing them across levels would produce a position nobody ever took.
Before editing configuration¶
- The shipped grade configuration states whether AI generated or manipulated the published content, which is the factual premise both paragraphs share. Editing it changes that statement, not only its wording.
- Article 50(4) ¶2 exempts reviewed content only where a person holds editorial responsibility. The Commission reads this as someone carrying the ultimate legal responsibility for publishing. The module checks both: human review without a named responsibility does not exempt, and the field is required wherever review is asserted. It does not judge the name it is given, so a generic role is accepted - but it names nobody, and will not hold up in an audit.
The dates¶
The dates the shipped configuration assumes, as the Commission states them:
- Article 50 applies from 2 August 2026.
- Content generated before that date does not have to be labelled retroactively. The Commission encourages it, and does not require it.
- One grace period ends on 2 December 2026. It is narrower than it is usually quoted: it covers only systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026, and only the marking and detection duty of Article 50(2), the one that asks a provider to mark the file itself. It is not a general postponement of Article 50.
Sources¶
The Commission's FAQ on the Article 50 transparency obligations and its guidelines on transparency for AI-generated content, both at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu.