Scope screener
Five questions. Runs entirely in your browser — no signup to use, nothing sent until you choose to leave an email. Built on the Commission's Article 50 guidance; we update it when final guidelines land.
Article 50's provider obligations may apply to you
Based on your answers, your system looks like it may fall within the provider transparency obligations under Article 50(2). This is not a compliance determination — it depends on your complete implementation and circumstances.
What the Code (Section 1) expects
- Machine-readable marking — signed metadata (C2PA manifest + trusted timestamp).
- Machine-readable marking — an imperceptible watermark.
- Detection availability for your outputs.
- Marking robustness / state of the art.
- Implementation records you retain and can present to authorities.
- Your own policies, ToS anti-removal clauses, testing, and legal assessment (customer responsibility).
On your upstream answer: even where an upstream model applies marking that survives your pipeline, a feature offered under your own name or trademark can still carry the provider obligation — including detection, robustness assessment, and implementation records. Confirm what actually survives end-to-end.
Get the developer guide and early access
Leave an email for the Article 50 for developers guide and Early Production Access updates.
Nothing in your answers clearly indicates the provider obligation applies
Based on your answers, we did not identify a clear indicator that Article 50's provider transparency obligations apply to your system. That is not the same as a determination that they do not: exclusions and edge cases require individual assessment, and scope changes with your circumstances. If any answer changes — or you are unsure how a question maps to your product — treat the result as inconclusive and seek advice.
You're still welcome to the developer guide if you'd like to understand the marking measures.