The regulation is law from this date, with obligations phasing in over the following three years. Article 50 covers transparency: telling people when they are looking at AI-generated or manipulated content.
The first substantive deadline, unrelated to Article 50 but relevant as precedent: authorities demonstrated they were willing to act on the phase-in dates as written.
Member states designate authorities and the penalty framework becomes applicable. The maximum fines for transparency breaches are set at this point, though enforcement machinery is not yet in place.
From this date, providers and deployers must disclose AI-generated or manipulated content in a machine-readable form. This is the obligation Provena exists to satisfy.
Market surveillance authorities must be designated, resourced and able to act. In practice this is when requests for evidence start arriving with a legal basis behind them.
The remaining transitional allowances end. Systems placed on the market before the phase-in dates lose their grace period, and the transparency requirements apply uniformly.
Harmonised standards for provenance marking are expected to consolidate around C2PA. Codes of practice will define what a reasonable technical effort looks like — which is where a coverage figure with named exceptions becomes the defensible answer.
Coverage cannot be backfilled. An asset published unmarked in October stays unmarked in the record.