AI Act marking exemption for B2B and industrial output: how narrow

Narrow. The Commission's Transparency obligations under Article 50 of the AI Act page says that, to keep Article 50(2) proportionate, "a narrow exemption of the marking obligation is envisaged" for AI systems whose outputs are used in business-to-business or industrial contexts, "provided the conditions specified in the guidelines are met." The FAQ does not spell those conditions out, so you cannot tell from it alone whether a given video qualifies. This reports the page and is not legal advice.

What does the FAQ say is out of scope entirely?

Separate from that exemption, the page lists outputs the guidelines place outside the marking obligation: a short sequence of numbers, symbols or letters; source code; outputs intended only for machine-to-machine communication and processed automatically with no exposure to humans; and outputs used only in closed-loop industrial and product development environments, "for example for film production, unless they are the final output."

Standard editing is a further carve-out: marking does not apply when the AI system performs an assistive function for standard editing.

Is an ad delivered to a client a B2B output?

The FAQ does not answer that, and a video handed to an advertiser that then publishes it to consumers may be the final output the closed-loop line excludes. Read the conditions in the Guidelines on transparency obligations before relying on the exemption, and treat a final published video as covered unless you have checked.

What can I record either way?

If you decide an output is exempt, record why next to the file. For each generated clip, Jobs and results describes a durable job id and result artifacts; storing those with a note on the context (client delivery, internal draft, published) gives you something to point to later. Sume's docs do not state a position on any Article 50 exemption.