What Article 50 of the EU AI Act requires

The transparency obligations in Article 50 of the AI Act have applied since August 2, 2026. They distinguish between obligations for providers of AI systems and obligations for people or companies deploying certain AI content.

Providers of AI systems that generate synthetic audio, image, video, or text content generally need to ensure that outputs are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated. Deployers must disclose deepfakes in particular. Separate rules and exceptions apply to AI-generated or manipulated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest.

Not every AI edit automatically requires labelling

The regulation does not apply indiscriminately to every company, asset, or minor image adjustment. Article 50 provides an exception for assistive standard editing where the AI system does not substantially alter the input data supplied by the deployer or its meaning.

The type, purpose, and publication context of content also matter. A realistic synthetic campaign visual may need a different assessment from technical background removal or colour correction. Companies should therefore review specific content types and channels with their legal advisers.

Why DAM becomes an organisational control point

A Digital Asset Management system brings assets, metadata, versions, approvals, and channel-specific outputs together. This is where teams can record how content was created, whether AI was involved, which review took place, and which information needs to accompany an export or publication.

Distributed folders, email attachments, and unstructured cloud storage make that traceability difficult. A central data source does not replace legal assessment or technical labelling, but it creates the foundation for building those decisions into the content process.

Five questions for marketing and content teams

  1. Do we know which assets were AI-generated or AI-edited? Structured metadata should record origin and editing.
  2. Can we distinguish assistive editing from substantial alteration? This requires clear internal criteria and legal review where appropriate.
  3. Is there a human review step before every relevant publication? Responsibility and approval should be unambiguous.
  4. Does provenance information survive export? The destination channel helps determine which visible and technical information is needed.
  5. Can we reconstruct decisions later? Versions, changes, and approvals should be documented.

How Agravity GlobalDAM supports these processes

Agravity GlobalDAM helps teams manage AI-related information as metadata, review content in a structured process, and trace changes through Entity History. AI-assisted functions help with recognition, keywording, and metadata; editorial control remains with the team.

This supports human-in-the-loop processes and clear approvals. The visible notices and machine-readable markings required in an individual case depend on the content, AI system, and publishing channel. The specific implementation should therefore be reviewed from both a technical and legal perspective.

Checklist for your next steps

  • Map where AI is used across your content lifecycle.
  • Define metadata for origin, type of editing, system used, and review outcome.
  • Set a mandatory human approval step for relevant content.
  • Check whether provenance information survives conversion, export, and distribution.
  • Ask your legal team which content types and channels fall within Article 50.
  • Review the process regularly as guidance and technical standards continue to develop.

Transparency starts before publication

The EU AI Act makes traceable content processes a practical topic for marketing, communications, and IT. Teams that structure origin, editing, and approval in their DAM can implement new requirements with more control and less manual coordination.

Talk to us about mapping your AI and approval processes in Agravity GlobalDAM.

Official sources

This article provides a general overview and does not constitute legal advice.