Providers vs deployers under Article 50
Direct answer
Article 50 assigns machine-readable marking to providers and human-visible disclosure to professional deployers of covered content. A marketer using a third-party generator does not automatically inherit the provider's marking duty. Employees under company control are not separate deployers. For systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026, the Article 50(2) marking deadline is 2 December 2026.
Applies when
- Providing a system that generates synthetic audio, image, video or text.
- Using an AI system under a professional actor's authority.
- Publishing a covered deepfake or public-interest text.
Doesn't apply when
- Job titles and contract labels do not determine the role by themselves.
- An employee acting under a company's control is not a separate deployer.
- Personal, non-professional use is excluded from the deployer definition, but platform rules and other law remain separate.
- The limited provider grace period applies only to Article 50(2) marking for systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026.
Worked decision
Example
SaaS company provides an image generator
Human review required
Article 50(2) provider marking requires a system-specific assessment of generated outputs and defined exceptions.
Next steps
Required action
- Classify the actor and the authority governing this exact use.
- For providers, record when the system was first placed on the EU market or put into service.
- Run provider marking and deployer visible-disclosure checks separately.
- Record the accountable legal person, evidence owner and recheck date.
Publishing layer
Platform differences
Law, platform and client layers
Article 50 duties and platform policies are separate layers. A platform label can help communicate AI use, but it does not by itself establish compliance with the AI Act.
Evidence
Source
Freshness and accountability
Last verified
Applies from 2026-08-02 · Last reviewed 2026-09-21 · Current
Run this exact scenario
Relevant content, AI-use and platform inputs are preselected. Confirm the remaining facts before relying on the result.
Who is affected
- Generative AI system providers.
- Brands and agencies using AI under their own or a client's authority.
- Employees, contractors and independent professionals publishing AI-assisted content.
More scenarios
| Scenario | Outcome | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Provider system first placed before 2 August 2026 | No disclosure identified | The temporary marking grace period runs until 2 December 2026; record a mandatory recheck for that date. |
| Employee publishes a realistic AI ad for the employer | Disclosure required | The employer or controlling organisation is the deployer; the employee is not a separate deployer. |
| Agency uses AI solely under the client's authority | Human review required | Responsibility depends on who controls the system use; record the client or agency authority before allocating the duty. |
| Private individual creates content for personal use | No disclosure identified | No Article 50 deployer duty is identified for genuinely personal, non-professional use; platform rules remain independent. |
Practical marketing examples
- Provider implements interoperable machine-readable marking.
- Controlling organisation adds a clear disclosure to covered published content.
Related pages
Disclara separates binding law, platform policy, client policy, technical provenance and recommended wording. Information on this page is not legal advice. See editorial policy.