What the regulation actually requires
Article 50 of the European AI Act does not say that everything made with AI carries a label. It says something narrower, and that difference is what you either pay for or save.
The disclosure duty covers images, audio and video that constitute a deep fake: content meeting two conditions at once — it imitates a person, place or event that exists, and it could look authentic to whoever sees it. If either is missing, it is not one.
Two nuances almost nobody applies correctly. First: in manifestly artistic, satirical or fictional work the disclosure still exists, but in a form that does not spoil the work. Second: text published to inform the public on matters of public interest is covered too, unless it went through human review and someone holds editorial responsibility.
Penalties for breaching Article 50 reach €15 million or 3% of worldwide turnover, whichever is higher.
What you get
- An inventory of the AI-generated or AI-manipulated pieces you publish: site, campaigns, social, catalogue, audio.
- A verdict per piece: labelled, not labelled, or borderline — and why, with the article applied.
- The wording of the label where one is needed, and where to place it so it complies without ruining the piece.
- A dated document you can file. If someone asks two years from now, the answer is already written, and dated before the question.
When the answer is that you need nothing
It happens often, and we say so anyway. A clearly synthetic illustration imitates nothing that exists. A voice that impersonates no one in particular does not either. A stylised product render may fall outside, depending on how it was made — while a synthetic photograph of the same product falls inside.
An audit that always concludes "label everything" is not an audit: it is a fear policy. The value is in knowing where the line runs.
One honest note: we are not a law firm. The verdict is technical and documentary, meant to support a conversation with yours, not to replace it.