# AI Generated Content Labelling Policy Template

Document owner: [Insert owner]
System or content channel: [Insert system or channel]
Review date: [Insert date]
Next review trigger: [Insert trigger]

## 1. Purpose

This policy defines how the organisation reviews, approves, labels, and retains evidence for AI generated or manipulated content that may trigger Article 50 transparency obligations.

This template is an operational starting point. It is not legal advice, certification advice, audit assurance, or a compliance guarantee.

## 2. Scope

Covered systems, channels, or content types:

- [Insert AI system or vendor]
- [Insert content channel]
- [Insert audience or user group]
- [Insert content type]

Article 50 scenario:

- [ ] Direct AI interaction notice
- [ ] Synthetic audio, image, video, or text generated by an AI system
- [ ] Emotion recognition notice
- [ ] Biometric categorisation notice
- [ ] Deepfake disclosure
- [ ] AI generated or manipulated public-interest text disclosure
- [ ] Not in scope after review
- [ ] Legal review required

## 3. Roles and approval authority

| Role | Named owner | Responsibility | Evidence location |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business owner | [Insert name] | Owns the content or system use. | [Insert location] |
| AI system owner | [Insert name] | Confirms system behaviour and provider evidence. | [Insert location] |
| Legal or compliance reviewer | [Insert name] | Reviews Article 50 and other legal questions. | [Insert location] |
| Privacy reviewer | [Insert name] | Reviews personal data, DPIA, and disclosure overlap. | [Insert location] |
| Publication or product approver | [Insert name] | Approves label wording and placement. | [Insert location] |

## 4. Provider marking dependency

| Question | Answer | Evidence retained |
|---|---|---|
| Does the provider offer machine readable marking or detection? | [Yes / No / Unknown] | [Insert source] |
| Is the provider evidence current? | [Yes / No / Unknown] | [Insert date and location] |
| Is the provider marking relied on for this use? | [Yes / No / Not relied on] | [Insert rationale] |
| Is additional deployer disclosure still required? | [Yes / No / Legal review required] | [Insert rationale] |

## 5. Human facing label decision

Approved label wording:

[Insert wording]

Placement:

[Insert placement]

Timing:

- [ ] Before interaction
- [ ] At first interaction
- [ ] At first exposure
- [ ] At publication point
- [ ] Other: [Insert]

Accessibility and language checks:

- [ ] Clear and distinguishable
- [ ] Accessible to intended users
- [ ] Available in required language versions
- [ ] Tested on mobile and desktop where relevant

## 6. EU icon decision

EU icon route:

- [ ] EU icon used
- [ ] EU icon considered but not used
- [ ] EU icon under review
- [ ] Not applicable

Record:

- Icon selected: [Insert]
- Accompanying text: [Insert]
- Placement: [Insert]
- Rationale: [Insert]

Note: The European Commission states that EU icon use is optional and does not establish legal compliance by itself.

## 7. Public-interest text review

Does the content inform the public on a matter of public interest?

[Yes / No / Unclear]

If yes, record:

- Human reviewer: [Insert]
- Editorial owner: [Insert]
- Review date: [Insert]
- Editorial responsibility assumed by: [Insert person or legal entity]
- Disclosure decision: [Disclosure added / Exception relied on / Legal review required]

## 8. Code route

Article 50 Code route:

- [ ] Organisation has signed the Code
- [ ] Organisation is considering signing the Code
- [ ] Organisation follows Code aligned measures without signature
- [ ] Organisation uses other adequate measures as a non signatory
- [ ] Not reviewed yet

Rationale:

[Insert rationale]

Evidence retained:

[Insert location]

## 9. Exceptions and escalation

Exception considered:

- [ ] Evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional, or analogous work
- [ ] Authorised by law for specified criminal law purposes
- [ ] Human review or editorial control for public-interest text
- [ ] No exception relied on
- [ ] Legal review required

Escalation trigger:

[Insert trigger]

## 10. Retention and review

Record repository:

[Insert location]

Retention owner:

[Insert owner]

Next review date:

[Insert date]

Change triggers:

- [ ] New provider marking feature
- [ ] New publication channel
- [ ] New EU guidance
- [ ] Code signatory status change
- [ ] Complaint, user confusion, or incident
- [ ] Material content workflow change