Topic dossier
Where AI-generated images, video, audio and text must be disclosed, watermarked or removed — the binding rules and the proposals. 19 obligations across 9 jurisdictions — 16 in force. Next dated deadline: 1 Oct 2026.
A fast-moving cluster of laws now requires AI-generated and manipulated media to be labelled, watermarked or disclosed. They divide into two families: provenance rules that mark content at creation — a visible label plus embedded metadata or a watermark — and platform duties to take down non-consensual or deceptive synthetic media. The obligations below are the instruments AI Law Radar tracks under this theme, each linked to its primary source and dated to its last check.
Binds Providers & deployers of interactive, synthetic-content or biometric AI. Disclosure of AI interaction; marking of AI-generated content.
Stated maximum penalty — Up to 3% turnover or €15M
Binds Anyone publishing non-consensual intimate imagery; covered online platforms (notice-and-removal). Bans non-consensual intimate imagery incl. AI deepfakes; covered platforms must remove within 48h (notice-and-removal duty live 19 May 2026).
Stated maximum penalty — FTC enforcement; criminal penalties
Binds Any person or entity using a deceased NY-domiciled performer's AI-generated digital replica in covered audiovisual, recorded, or live musical works without written consent from rights holders. Requires prior written consent from heirs, executors, or assigns before using a deceased New York-domiciled performer's or personality's AI-generated digital replica in audiovisual works, sound recordings, or live musical performances. Amends NY Civil Rights Law §50-f to introduce an AI-specific 'digital replica' definition (highly realistic, readily identifiable, computer-generated representation) and removes the prior 'likely to deceive' threshold. Covers 40 years post-mortem. Private right of action: statutory damages ≥$2,000 or actual damages plus profits and punitive damages.
Stated maximum penalty — ≥$2,000 statutory damages or actual damages + profits + punitive damages (private right of action)
Binds Persons, firms, or corporations engaged in commerce who produce or create advertisements using synthetic performers with actual knowledge of their use in New York. Requires conspicuous disclosure when AI-generated synthetic performers (digitally created human assets not recognizable as any identifiable real person) appear in advertisements in any medium — newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, streaming, billboards, and transit. Advertisers must have actual knowledge of synthetic performer use. Exempts expressive works, audio-only ads, and language-translation uses.
Stated maximum penalty — $1,000 first violation; $5,000 subsequent violations (civil penalties)
Binds Any person creating, distributing, or facilitating AI-generated/manipulated likenesses of Washington residents. Prohibits creating or using AI-generated forged digital likenesses without consent; amends WA Personality Rights Act.
Stated maximum penalty — $3,000/violation + noneconomic damages; private right of action
Binds Anyone who knowingly publishes realistic AI-generated imitations of identifiable persons without consent; advertisers using synthetic performers in a materially deceptive manner. Two-part law: (1) prohibits publishing unauthorized AI-generated realistic imitations of identifiable persons for use in advertising, fraud, harassment, defamation, or election interference — victims may sue for up to $25,000 per piece or actual damages; (2) requires conspicuous disclosure when synthetic performers (AI-fabricated human assets not recognizable as any real individual) appear in advertising in a materially deceptive manner.
Stated maximum penalty — Up to $25,000 per piece of content or actual damages, plus punitive damages and attorneys fees (Part I — private civil action + AG); $1,000 first violation / $5,000 subsequent violations (Part II — AG enforcement)
Binds Covered GenAI providers with >1M monthly users accessible in California. AI-detection tool + content provenance for >1M-user providers.
Stated maximum penalty — Civil penalties per violation/day
Binds Large online platforms and device manufacturers with >1M monthly users/visitors in California. Extends SB 942 AI-detection & watermarking duties to large platforms and device manufacturers; Phase 2 obligations (1M+ users) from Jan 1, 2027.
Phase 1 (Aug 2, 2026): AI detection tools & manifest disclosures. Phase 2 (Jan 1, 2027): additional large-platform obligations.
Stated maximum penalty — $5,000/day per violation
Binds Any person who uses AI or deepfake representations with fraudulent intent to harm, harass, intimidate, or threaten individuals in Maryland. Criminalises creation and distribution of AI/deepfake representations used for identity fraud; expands existing identity-fraud statute.
Signed May 12, 2026 by Governor Wes Moore; effective October 1, 2026.
Stated maximum penalty — Up to 5 years imprisonment and/or $10,000 fine (single victim); up to 10 years and/or $15,000 (two or more victims)
Binds AI content creators and operators serving Washington users. Operators/creators must inform users when content is developed or modified through AI.
Signed 2026-03-24; codified as Chapter 167, Laws of 2026. Enforced exclusively by the WA Attorney General under the Consumer Protection Act (ch. 19.86 RCW).
Stated maximum penalty — Civil penalty up to $100,000 per covered provider (WA Consumer Protection Act, ch. 19.86 RCW; AG enforcement only)
Binds Any person in the UK who creates or requests creation of a non-consensual intimate deepfake image. Section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 inserts ss.66E–66H into the Sexual Offences Act 2003, criminalising the creation of non-consensual 'purported intimate images' (deepfakes) and the act of requesting such creation, even if the image is never distributed.
In force February 6, 2026 per SI 2026/31 (Commencement No. 5 Regulations 2026). Distinct from Crime and Policing Act 2026 (ss.66I–66L) which targets tool suppliers; this section targets end-users who create or request deepfakes.
Stated maximum penalty — Unlimited fine and/or summary imprisonment (Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Binds Individual developers, distributors, and corporate bodies (criminal offences); Ofcom-regulated platforms (OSA priority-content duty). Criminalises making, adapting, possessing, supplying, or offering to supply AI models optimised to generate CSAM (up to 5 years imprisonment). Separately criminalises AI “nudification” tools/deepfake intimate image generators. Upgrades AI-generated intimate image creation to priority offences under the Online Safety Act; Ofcom-regulated platforms must prevent and remove such content (up to £3M penalty for non-compliance).
Royal Assent: 29 April 2026 (2026 c.20). Section 99 (purported intimate image generators) and related provisions commenced 29 June 2026 via UKSI 2026/689 (Commencement No. 1). CSAM generator offences (Pt.3 Ch.3) commenced on same SI.
Stated maximum penalty — 5 years imprisonment (CSA/deepfake AI generator offences); £3M Ofcom fine (platform intimate image duty)
Binds Deep-synthesis service providers, technical supporters, and users. Conspicuous labelling and consent for synthetic media / deepfakes.
Stated maximum penalty — Rectification, suspension, criminal referral
Binds AI-content service & propagation platforms, app stores, and users. Explicit (visible) and implicit (metadata/watermark) labels on AI-generated content.
Stated maximum penalty — CAC administrative penalties
Binds AI business operators offering AI products/services in Korea (extraterritorial). Pre-notify users that a service uses AI; label generative and realistic synthetic outputs.
MSIT enforcement grace period of one year from 22 Jan 2026; fines deferred until ~22 Jan 2027.
Stated maximum penalty — Admin fine up to ₩30M
Binds All internet users (duty not to spread false election information); candidates and campaign organisations (AI labelling obligation); large-scale platform operators (X, YouTube, Meta) operating in Japan. AI-generated election content must display an 'AI作成' label; large social media platforms must implement harm-mitigation measures and publish annual reports covering election misinformation. Applies from March 2027.
Passed the House of Councillors July 13, 2026; promulgated July 17, 2026 as Law No. 58 of Reiwa 8 (令和8年法律第58号). Amends the Public Offices Election Law and the Platform Countermeasures Act (情プラ法). Enforcement March 1, 2027 ahead of April 2027 unified local elections. No new criminal penalties for platform duties (political compromise). AI-generated content that could be mistaken for authentic footage must display 'AI作成' label; clearly identifiable illustrations/animation are exempt.
Stated maximum penalty — No new criminal penalties created; existing election law criminal provisions (Art. 235-2) continue to apply to candidates
Binds Providers / deployers of generative AI and user-facing AI systems. Machine-readable labels on AI media; disclose when users interact with AI; deceptive deepfakes banned.
Stated maximum penalty — Admin fines (decree-set)
Binds Intermediaries, significant social-media intermediaries (5M+ users), GenAI tool providers. Mandatory labels on AI-generated (SGI) content; 3-hour government-ordered takedown; significant-platform traceability.
Stated maximum penalty — Loss of safe harbour; IT Act offences
Binds Employers / producers using performers’ voice or image via AI; performer contracts. Prior written consent + remuneration to clone or simulate a performer’s voice or image.
Published in the DOF 14 May 2026; in force 15 May 2026.
Stated maximum penalty — Civil/authorial + labour liability
It depends where the content is seen. The EU AI Act (Article 50), China’s labelling rules, South Korea’s AI Basic Act, Vietnam’s Law on AI and India’s IT Rules all require AI-generated or synthetic media to be disclosed or marked; the exact form — a visible label, embedded metadata, or a watermark — varies by instrument. Each row above links to the controlling text.
Article 50 requires providers and deployers to disclose AI interaction and to mark AI-generated or manipulated audio, image, video and text — including deepfakes — in a machine-readable way. Its transparency obligations are dated 2 August 2026.
Most jurisdictions do not ban synthetic media outright; they require it to be labelled and forbid specific harmful uses. Non-consensual intimate imagery is the clearest exception — the US TAKE IT DOWN Act and the EU’s new Article 5 prohibition target it directly.
We currently track deepfakes & content labelling obligations across 9 jurisdictions: European Union, United States, United Kingdom, China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India and Mexico. Each is dated and linked to its primary source on this page.
Not legal advice. Each obligation links to its primary source and carries the date it was last checked; verify the legal text before relying on it.