Guides · Article 50 · EU AI Act
AI video generation tools and the EU AI Act
Text-to-video and scene-generation tools have become a category of their own — turning prompts or storyboards into finished clips for ads, training, and social. Two EU AI Act paragraphs can bear on that output: Article 50(2), the provider-side machine-readable marking of synthetic video, and Article 50(4), the deployer-side deepfake disclosure where a clip depicts a real person convincingly. This guide explains both from the regulation text. It is informational only, not legal advice, and does not name any tool category as in or out of scope.
Provider marking of synthetic video — Article 50(2)
Article 50(2) asks providers of AI systems generating synthetic audio, image, video or text to ensure the outputs are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated, with technical solutions that are effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as technically feasible, taking into account the specificities and limitations of the content type. Video bundles image and audio, each with its own robustness constraints the paragraph acknowledges. As written, this marking duty sits on the provider of the video system — not automatically on every editor who exports a clip. Whether a given category of tool falls inside 50(2) is fact-specific.
Deployer deepfake disclosure — Article 50(4)
Where a generated clip constitutes a deep fake — for example a lifelike depiction of an identifiable person — Article 50(4) is written on the deployer of the system: they must disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. A wholly invented scene therefore sits differently from a synthetic likeness of a real individual. Where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous work, the paragraph limits the obligation to disclosing the existence of generated content in a manner that does not hamper enjoyment of the work, and a law-enforcement carve-out can apply. Whether your video is a 'deep fake' and whether a carve-out applies are fact-specific.
Two roles, mapped separately
The useful exercise is to keep the provider-side marking question (50(2)) apart from the deployer-side deepfake question (50(4)), because the same organisation can be a provider of one system and a deployer of another. If you build and offer the generator, the provider-side analysis may be yours; if you merely use it to produce a clip of a real person, the deployer-side analysis may be. Article 50(5) then points toward a clear, distinguishable disclosure at or before first exposure, meeting accessibility requirements. Our free scope check gives an informational read; confirm the role and scope mapping with qualified counsel.
Common questions
Do AI video generation tools have to label their output?
The machine-readable marking duty in Article 50(2) is written on the provider of the generator; the deepfake disclosure in 50(4) is written on the deployer where a clip depicts a real person convincingly. Which applies to your situation, if either, is fact-specific — verify with qualified counsel.
See what may apply to your business
Answer seven quick questions for an automated, informational indication of which Article 50 obligations appear likely to apply — free, and not legal advice.