SenseDefend

Synthetic-media instruments, by article and effective date

What it asks for: the row holding the duty itself

What it asks for is the row holding the duty itself, quoted close to the wording of the paragraph. Across the record the cell holds four different kinds of thing, which is why the record resists compressing any of them into a single duty to label. As of 2026-09-12.

One row holding four different kinds of thingAcross the paragraph pages this row holds a design property, a mark inside a file, a notice given to people present, and a disclosure attached to a publication. Each is satisfied by a different sort of work, and none substitutes for another.What the row holds, paragraph by paragraphA property of the systemBuilt so the person is informed. Nothing is attached to anyoutput.A mark inside the outputMachine-readable, qualified by what is technically feasible.A notice to people presentGiven to those exposed to an emotion or biometric system.A disclosure atpublicationAttached to generated image, audio, video and certain text.
Fig. 1 A summary that compressed these into a duty to label would read well and would be wrong in four separate ways.
What each paragraph asks for, as the row on its page holds it. Recorded 2026-09-12.
ParagraphWhat the row records
Article 50(1)Design that informs the person they are interacting with an AI system
Article 50(2)Machine-readable marking, detectable as generated or manipulated
Article 50(3)Informing the people exposed to the system's operation
Article 50(4)Disclosure that the content is generated or manipulated
Article 50(4), textDisclosure that the text was generated or manipulated

Inclusion rule. Paragraph pages carrying this row. The manner paragraph and the codes-of-practice paragraph carry different rows, because one governs how a disclosure is given and the other is addressed to the AI Office. Order. Clause order, as the article itself runs.

1One row, four different kinds of thing

On the first paragraph page the cell holds a property of a system: it has to be built so that the person is informed. On the second it holds a mark that has to end up inside the output. On the third it holds a notice given to people who are present. On the fourth it holds a disclosure attached to something published.

Those are not variations on a theme. The first is satisfied at design time by an engineering decision, the second by what a file carries, the third by signage or an announcement, and the fourth by whatever accompanies a publication. A summary flattening them into a duty to label would read well and would be wrong four times over.

2The qualifier travels with the wording, not with the row

The marking paragraph does not ask for marking in the abstract. It asks for solutions that are effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as is technically feasible, and the record keeps that on a quality-bar row of its own rather than folding it into the ask. The two are separable: a product can mark its output and still sit some distance from that bar.

Splitting them is deliberate. A single cell reading machine-readable marking, effective and robust would present as one requirement, and a reader holding a vendor statement against it would have no way to see that the second half is qualified by feasibility while the first half is not.

3Reading the column against what generators publish

This column is the half of the record taken from the article. The other half is what each generator publishes about its own output, and the two live in separate tables because they are different kinds of statement: one is an obligation, the other a description of a product.

Setting them beside one another is the point of keeping the field at all. A paragraph asking for machine-readable marking and a vendor page mentioning only a visible mark are not in conflict; they simply do not meet, and that gap becomes visible only when the ask is recorded in the words the article uses.

4What this row is not

The cell records what a paragraph asks for. It does not say what would count as having done it, because the article does not say either, and the paragraph pointing at codes of practice is the regulation's own acknowledgement of that gap.

So a cell here can be quoted with confidence and cannot be turned into a specification. Where a reader needs a specification, this record can show what has been published so far and the date it was read, and nothing beyond that.

  • Article 50(1)
    Providers must design systems so people are told they are dealing with an AI systemunless it is obvious in contextAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Article 50(2)
    Providers must mark synthetic audio, image, video and text in a machine-readable formatincluding general-purpose AI systemsAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Article 50(2)
    Technical solutions must be effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as technically feasiblequalifier on the marking dutyAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Article 50(3)
    Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation must inform the people exposed to itAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Article 50(4)
    Deployers must disclose image, audio or video content that is a deep fakefirst subparagraphAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Article 50(4)
    Deployers must disclose AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interestsecond subparagraphAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12

5Sources

Article wording from AI Act Explorer, Article 50. Read 2026-09-12. The cells themselves stay on the entries they were taken from; the other rows are listed on the fields page. Next to this one: Who controls it, Carve-out.