Guidelines on the implementation of the transparency obligations for certain AI systems under Article 50 of the AI Act — C(2026) 5054 final, Annex

(119) Article 50(4), first subparagraph, AI Act foresees an attenuated transparency obligation for deep fakes forming part of evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works or programmes. For such content, the transparency obligation is limited to the disclosure of the deep fake in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work.

(120) Relevant content categories: To benefit from the attenuated transparency disclosure, the deep fake (image, audio or video) should form part of, at least, one of the following content categories: artistic, creative, satirical, fictional, or analogous works or programmes. Whether a deep fake falls under one or more of these categories requires a case-by-case assessment by the deployer. For the purpose of Article 50(4) AI Act, those categories are understood as follows:

- Artistic works are to be understood as works that have been created for the purpose of art, including music, cinematographic works, and visual arts;

- Creative works are to be understood as works that involve creative choices. Works that are mainly motivated by functional or technical considerations cannot be regarded as creative;

- Satirical works are to be understood as works that are intended to criticise society, politics, business or public figures through the use of humoristic techniques (including irony, sarcasm, mockery, pastiche etc.);

- Fictional works are to be understood as cultural works that involve persons, objects, places, entities or events, in an imaginary, but verisimilitude setting;

- Analogous works are to be understood as works sharing core traits or similar expressive or functional characteristics with the above categories, but not fitting neatly into one.

(121) The above content categories may also apply to programme(s) that should be understood as an individual item within a schedule or catalogue, established by a media service provider, that is comparable in form and content to television broadcasting (33). The reference to ‘works’ in the context of Article 50(4) AI Act has no bearing on whether the content qualifies for protection under Union law on copyright and related rights.

(122) Evidently: The fact that a deep fake falls within one (or more) of the above content categories should be evident to the natural persons exposed to it. This implies that the categories should be interpreted strictly, justified by the fact that a lighter disclosure regime applies due to the potential impact on the freedom of expression and the freedom of the arts and sciences, while risks of misinformation, manipulation and deception still need to be addressed adequately. Therefore, content whose nature is potentially unclear or ambiguous to the audience is excluded from the scope of this lighter transparency regime. Relevant factors for assessing the evident nature of artistic, creative, satirical or fictional content include: (i) whether the content displays formats or styles that are characteristic of the content categories (e.g. irony or exaggeration for satirical works, certain art styles, displaying distinctive themes, techniques or aesthetics, etc.); (ii) the context in which the content is presented (e.g. if the platform, medium or place where the content is presented, made available, or distributed is associated with artistic, creative, satirical or fictional use); and (iii) audience expectations (e.g. a movie, gaming environment, or virtual reality scene). In addition, the condition that content should ‘evidently’ fall in one of the above content categories excludes content from the scope of those content categories if its nature is exclusively informative or commercial and is recognisable as such (e.g. news reporting). In this respect, some kinds of content (e.g. advertisements or documentaries) containing deep fakes might be regarded as evidently creative or fictional works in certain, specific situations, but not in others, since the assessment is case-specific. When the deep fake combines multiple characters (e.g. informative and creative), the informative character should always prevail and require compliance with the standard labelling requirements.

(123) Appropriate disclosure not hampering the display or enjoyment of the work: Deep fakes that form part of evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional works or programmes are not excluded from the transparency obligation of Article 50(4), first subparagraph, AI Act. Deployers still need to disclose the AI-origin of the content or its manipulation, but they can do so in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work. Recital 134 AI Act clarifies that such appropriate disclosure should not hamper the normal exploitation and use, while allowing to maintain the utility and quality of the work. Determining which disclosure measures are to be considered appropriate is a case-by-case assessment, whereby deployers may consider all relevant factors (including nature of the work, audience, context, etc.). In any case, deployers need to comply with Article 50(5) AI Act (see Section 7). In light of Article 50(7) AI Act, deployers may adhere to a code of practice, assessed as adequate pursuant to that provision, to demonstrate compliance with this disclosure obligation. For further information regarding the effects of adherence to such a code and supervision of other deployers not adhering to a code, see Section 8.1 below.

(33) See in a similar vein Article 1(b) AVMSD.

(124) Appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties: Recital 134 AI Act clarifies that compliance with the attenuated transparency obligation and the use of artistic, creative, satirical or fictional deep fakes must be ‘subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties’. Therefore, deployers need to ensure that the rights and freedoms of third parties (including e.g. their right to the protection of personal data or intellectual property rights) are adequately safeguarded and respected, when creating or publishing deep fakes, even if the deep fake is to be considered artistic, creative, satirical or fictional. Reliance on the attenuated transparency obligation cannot be a justification for failing to respect the fundamental rights of individuals or rightsholders under Union law on intellectual property or Union data protection law (34). Examples of deep fakes that are creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works

- Artistic/fictional work: movies (or movie trailers) featuring AI-generated or manipulated deep fakes of de-aged, existing actors or digital replicas of dead actors or other persons, available in a cinema or on a streaming platform.

- Artistic/creative work: AI-generated music in any kind of genre resembling the individual style of existing artists.

- Satirical/fictional work: AI-manipulated image of an existing politician placing him in a scene clearly meant to criticise in a humorous manner certain policy decisions taken or supported by that person.

- Analogous creative/fictional work: AI-generated gaming imagery involving deep fake simulations of real, existing persons. Examples of deep fakes that do not constitute artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous work:

- AI-manipulated video in the style of a teleshopping channel involving deep fake simulation of humans advertising a product in an AI-generated scene depicting the functional use of the product by the simulated consumers with the aim of persuading viewers to buy the product.

- AI-generated image of celebrities implying their involvement in activities that never happened, lacking any fictional, satirical or analogous purpose. -AI-manipulated video featuring a realistic synthetic influencer testing out a sponsored real product, focused solely on displaying the product functionalities.

- AI-generated video depicting realistic, holocaust scenes being shared on publicly available social media platforms.