AI DetectiveArticle 50(2) and C2PA overview →

Practical guide · AI text

AI-generated text: why the marking problem is different

For image, video and audio files, a C2PA provenance record can travel inside the file. Text usually does not have an equivalent delivery path. That changes what a useful technical check looks like.

A marketing page, chatbot reply, product description or generated report often leaves its AI tool as plain text. It may be pasted into a CMS, edited by a person, translated, quoted in an email or rendered as a PDF. In those steps, a file-based origin record is usually not there to preserve.

This is a technical guide, not legal advice. Whether a disclosure or marking requirement applies to a particular use of AI-generated text should be assessed with legal advice.

A C2PA mark on an image does not mark the caption

If a campaign image has Content Credentials, that record says something about that image file. It does not automatically make the accompanying headline, product copy or blog post machine-readable as AI-generated. Treat each content type and each publishing route separately.

The practical pointDo not promise that an AI-text label is embedded in the words themselves if your workflow cannot prove that. Start with a clear disclosure where the reader sees the text, then retain an operational record behind it.

Map where text leaves your control

List the places your system produces text and the places it is published: an API response, a user download, a CMS, email, a knowledge base, social media, or a PDF. For each one, answer three plain questions:

  1. Can the system add a clear disclosure automatically?
  2. Can an editor remove or alter it before publishing?
  3. What record remains that links the published text to the generation event?

The answer may differ within one product. A chatbot can disclose its nature in the interface, while an article-writing workflow may need a CMS field, a byline convention or a publication check.

Make the rule automatic, not a reminder

Manual prompts such as “remember to disclose AI use” are easy to miss. A stronger workflow adds the relevant notice or metadata field at the moment content is created or exported, and makes the publishing route use it by default.

Keep a dated record of the template, system version and publishing route tested. That does not turn a technical process into a legal conclusion; it does mean you can demonstrate what the workflow did at a given time.

Test the final reader view

Do not only inspect the AI tool or the draft in the CMS. Open the actual public page, email or PDF and check what the reader receives. Then repeat after a routine update to the template or publishing integration.

The same end-to-end discipline applies to files. Our Article 50(2) marking checklist explains how to test AI-image, video and audio routes, while our social-media guide shows why the delivered copy matters.

Start with one real workflow

AI Detective maps the technical route, adds repeatable marking or disclosure controls and keeps a dated check of the result. We do not sell an AI detector or provide legal advice.

Free file checkAsk about a workflow review