Enforcement has begun while the technical transition continues
The change on 2 August under the EU AI Act is larger than a single labelling rule. Duties for providers of general-purpose models began applying last year; the Commission can now enforce them directly through investigations and fines. Within the same framework, some systems placed on the EU market before 2 August have until 2 December to meet technical marking and detection requirements. Legal enforcement power and the technical mark expected on every older system therefore do not begin on the same date.[1]
For Argus, that distinction changes the first question when a file carries no visible mark. The absence of a mark does not authenticate the file as human-made, and it does not settle noncompliance for a system in transition. The system's EU market-entry date, applicable technical duty, and eligibility for the 2 December transition must come first. The Commission's investigative power can demand that documentary chain; a viewer seeing no mark on screen observes only its final link.[1]
The mark in the file and the publisher's disclosure
The Act also places two transparency instruments side by side. AI-generated content must carry an electronically detectable mark, while a person or organisation publishing a highly realistic manipulated image, audio clip, or video must disclose the alteration. AI-generated text on a matter of public interest has a separate exemption when it receives human editorial review and a person or organisation accepts responsibility. The technical mark attaches to the file's production path; the publisher's disclosure attaches to public presentation and accountability.[1]
A sound provenance review during this transition separates four concrete facts: the system's market-entry date, whether the file carries an electronic mark, whether the publisher disclosed the alteration, and who accepted responsibility under the text exemption. Separate provisions for artistic, satirical, and fictional works make the type of file relevant as well. Taken together, those facts reveal whether the missing link sits with the provider, the publisher, or the transition timetable. A detector percentage or an unseen mark cannot substitute for that procedural question.[1]