EU AI Act Article 50
EU AI Act Article 50 provenance signals and technical limits
Know which provenance signals a file carries, which transformations strip them and how to keep Article 50(2) marking intact through your publishing pipeline.
The obligation
What the law requires
Article 50(2) expects marking that is robust and reliable as far as technically feasible. Provenance lives in metadata and manifests, and routine compression, resizing, screenshots and reposts remove it. Knowing where a signal breaks is the difference between a mark that exists and a mark that works.
The evidence
What proves it
isGenAI records the observed mechanism and its tested persistence for each product, with the transformation suite and result stored as evidence. No universal robustness percentage is ever claimed; every number traces to a tested artifact.
Official source text, public technical observations, vendor-submitted evidence and external inference are always kept apart. A missing public signal is recorded as NOT OBSERVED, a technical fact, never as a legal finding.
Live measurements
Observations from public scorecards
0 published observations for this topic under isgenai-methodology-2026-08-16.v1, each a dated technical observation with linked evidence. Legal applicability stays with counsel.
Observations publish the moment they clear the evidence gate. Output marking is verified on generated artifacts and disclosure inside the real user workflow, never from a marketing page alone.
Findings
Related public findings
Findings appear here as soon as a published scorecard records one for this topic.
Official sources
Cite the text, not the summary
Every page is written for citation: subject, date, method, sample, result and limitation are all extractable.