When Is Content "AI-Generated Enough"? Labelling Synthetic Media under the Digital Services Act and the AI Act

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07727v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 16:36:16 GMT
• Title: When Is Content "AI-Generated Enough"? Labelling Synthetic Media under the Digital Services Act and the AI Act
• Abstract summary: Abstract: European platform and AI governance increasingly relies on transparency duties to address synthetic and manipulated media.<n>It argues that the central challenge is not only whether content should be labelled, but how legal thresholds, technical provenance systems, platform interfaces, and reporting practices determine when content is sufficiently generated, manipulated, or authentic-looking to trigger transparency obligations.<n>It conceptualises labelling as a socio-technical classification practice that distributes responsibility among AI providers, deployers, platforms, uploaders, and recipients.
• Score: 0.8460698440162889
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: European platform and AI governance increasingly relies on transparency duties to address synthetic and manipulated media. Under the DSA, very large online platforms and search engines may use prominent markings and recipient-facing indication tools as systemic-risk mitigation measures. Under the AI Act, providers must support machine-readable marking, while deployers must disclose deepfakes and certain AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text, subject to statutory qualifications. This extended abstract examines when labelling is a meaningful regulatory response to synthetic media and when it risks becoming over-inclusive, under-inclusive, or ineffective. It argues that the central challenge is not only whether content should be labelled, but how legal thresholds, technical provenance systems, platform interfaces, and reporting practices determine when content is sufficiently generated, manipulated, or authentic-looking to trigger transparency obligations. Drawing on the emerging Article 50 AI Act implementation framework and a snapshot of the DSA Statement of Reasons database, the paper identifies four governance tensions: definitional ambiguity, interface and responsibility design, communicative effectiveness, and fairness and contestability. It conceptualises labelling as a socio-technical classification practice that distributes responsibility among AI providers, deployers, platforms, uploaders, and recipients.

Related papers

• Validity, Reliability, and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Regulation [2.588958866512272]
  Article argues that modern AI raises concerns of construct validity, confounding, representativeness, distribution shift, and fairness trade-offs.<n>We argue that inference should function as a precondition for proportionality assessment and deployment approval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T09:36:15Z)
• Beyond AI-Generated Labels: Watermarking, Co-Creation, and Conflation of AI-Generation with Disinformation [0.0]
  We argue that extending watermark-based approaches to settings is conceptually and practically misguided.<n>We propose an alternative approach centered on process transparency and information literacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T08:44:12Z)
• "AI Watermarking": Bridging Policy Discourse and Technical Capabilities [5.382439840155395]
  This work performs a critical analysis of the policy discourse surrounding generative AI content transparency in the US and EU.<n>We first collect a broad corpus of documents containing legislative language and policy-relevant discourse on the topic.<n>We then analyze these through inductive coding, and leverage our coding to systematize these documents, identifying key patterns, gaps, and open questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T19:45:19Z)
• Safe and Certifiable AI Systems: Concepts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned [45.44933002008943]
  This white paper presents the T"UV AUSTRIA Trusted AI framework.<n>It is an end-to-end audit catalog and methodology for assessing and certifying machine learning systems.<n>Building on three pillars - Secure Software Development, Functional Requirements, and Ethics & Data Privacy - it translates the high-level obligations of the EU AI Act into specific, testable criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:52:08Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• A Multi-Level Strategy for Deepfake Content Moderation under EU Regulation [1.6124402884077915]
  The EU has responded with transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems and online platforms.<n>This includes marking deepfakes during generation and labeling deepfakes when they are shared.<n>The lack of industry and enforcement standards poses an ongoing challenge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T08:08:42Z)
• Rethinking Data Protection in the (Generative) Artificial Intelligence Era [138.07763415496288]
  We propose a four-level taxonomy that captures the diverse protection needs arising in modern (generative) AI models and systems.<n>Our framework offers a structured understanding of the trade-offs between data utility and control, spanning the entire AI pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T02:45:51Z)
• Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Framework [0.3413711585591077]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming sectors such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems.<n>Yet its rapid integration raises urgent ethical concerns related to data ownership, privacy, and systemic bias.<n>This article proposes a modular ethical assessment framework built on ontological blocks of meaning-discrete, interpretable units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:10:47Z)
• Watermarking Without Standards Is Not AI Governance [46.71493672772134]
  We argue that current implementations risk serving as symbolic compliance rather than delivering effective oversight.<n>We propose a three-layer framework encompassing technical standards, audit infrastructure, and enforcement mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T18:10:04Z)
• Topic-Based Watermarks for Large Language Models [46.71493672772134]
  We propose a lightweight, topic-guided watermarking scheme for Large Language Model (LLM) output.<n>Our method achieves comparable perplexity to industry-leading systems, including Google's SynthID-Text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T17:49:40Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.