Every carve-out written into Article 50
Three carve-outs are written into the article: assistive standard editing that does not substantially alter the input, evidently creative work where the duty narrows rather than disappears, and published text that had human review with editorial responsibility. As of 2026-09-12.
| Point | Where it sits | What the record holds |
|---|---|---|
| Assistive standard editing | 50(2) | Does not substantially alter the input data |
| Evidently creative work | 50(4) | Duty narrows to disclosing that such content exists |
| Reviewed publication | 50(4), text | Human review plus editorial responsibility |
Inclusion rule. Carve-outs written into the text of Article 50 itself. Exemptions argued from recitals or from commentary are not listed. Order. By paragraph number, then as the text orders them.
1Only one of the three actually switches a duty off
The standard-editing carve-out removes the marking duty for a class of tool. The creative carve-out does not remove anything: it changes the duty's shape, from labelling the content to disclosing that generated content exists in a way that does not hamper enjoyment. The editorial carve-out removes the text duty when two conditions hold together.
Summaries routinely flatten all three into art is exempt, which is wrong on the middle one in a way that matters to exactly the people most likely to read it: anyone making fiction with generated footage.
2Substantially alter is the phrase doing the work in the first one
The editing carve-out turns on whether a tool substantially alters the input data or its semantics. Colour correction and a generative extension of a frame are obviously on different sides of that; a great many real editing features are not obviously on either.
The article gives no examples. This record therefore carries the phrase and does not attempt to sort tools into it, which would be the same as inventing the missing guidance and attributing it to the regulation.
3The two conditions in the text carve-out have to hold together
Human review or editorial control, and a person holding editorial responsibility for the publication. A pipeline with a reviewer but nobody accountable satisfies one limb; an accountable publisher who reviews nothing satisfies the other. The text asks for both.
That is a structural test rather than a proportion test, which means the question is not how much of the draft a model wrote. It is who stands behind what was published.
- Article 50(2)Machine-readable marking does not apply to assistive standard editing that does not substantially alter the inputsecond exemption
- Article 50(4)For evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional work the duty narrows to disclosing that such content exists, in a way that does not hamper enjoyment of the workfirst subparagraph
- Article 50(4)The text duty falls away where the output had human review or editorial control and a person holds editorial responsibilitysecond subparagraph
4Sources
Article wording from AI Act Explorer, Article 50; vendor statements from the pages listed on each generator entry. Both read 2026-09-12. Related: When it starts, What nobody publishes, The other duties.