The points no generator addresses
Two things the article asks for appear in no vendor's public pages: interoperability of a mark, and conformity with accessibility requirements for the disclosure. Both are recorded here as unaddressed rather than as absent from the products. As of 2026-09-12.
| Point | Where it sits | What the record holds |
|---|---|---|
| Interoperability of the mark | 50(2) | No entry claims it |
| Accessibility of the disclosure | 50(5) | No entry addresses it |
| Timing of first exposure | 50(5) | No entry states when its mark appears |
Inclusion rule. Points stated in Article 50 and checked against every generator page held here. A point one vendor addresses is not listed. Order. By paragraph number.
1Interoperability cannot be claimed by one vendor anyway
A mark is interoperable when someone other than its author can read it. No single company can deliver that alone, which makes the silence here less surprising than the other two rows and more structural: the property the paragraph asks for belongs to an ecosystem, and the article's own answer to that is the codes of practice mechanism further down.
So this row is not a criticism of any vendor. It is a note that the reader should not expect to find the property described on a product page, and should not read a robust scheme as an interoperable one.
2Accessibility is the row that could be filled tomorrow and is not
Unlike interoperability, conformity with accessibility requirements is entirely within a single product's control, and a visible watermark alone does not deliver it. A mark that only exists as pixels says nothing to a listener; a disclosure that only exists as audio says nothing to a viewer who cannot hear it.
Every entry in this record that describes a mark describes a visual one. None of them mentions the accessibility limb of paragraph 5, which is a gap in published material rather than evidence about the products themselves.
3Timing is knowable and unstated
Paragraph 5 fixes the moment: at the latest at the first interaction or exposure. Whether a given mark meets that depends on where in the pipeline it is applied, which is a fact each vendor knows and none of them publishes in those terms.
One entry comes closest, by saying the mark is applied when segments are composited into an episode. That locates the mark in the pipeline without saying anything about the moment a viewer meets the file, which is the moment the paragraph is about.
- Article 50(2)Technical solutions must be effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as technically feasiblequalifier on the marking duty
- Article 50(5)The information must be given clearly and distinguishably at the latest at the first interaction or exposureand must meet accessibility requirements
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: The other duties, Who is bound, Still to be written.