Since when has the EU AI Act applied?

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 has applied since 2 August 2026 (Article 113). Parts of it applied earlier: Chapters I and II from 2 February 2025, and Chapter XII on penalties from 2 August 2025. The Article 50 transparency obligations, which cover listing photos, follow the general date: they have been enforceable since 2 August 2026. The preparation period is over.

Is a virtually staged photo really a « deep fake » under the text?

The Regulation defines a deep fake as « AI-generated or manipulated image, audio or video content that resembles existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful » (Article 3(60)). The word « places » is in the definition, and an AI-staged property photo shows an existing place in a state that is not its own. The qualification is hard to argue away.

Who discloses: the agency or the software vendor?

Both, but not the same thing. The vendor, as provider, must mark outputs in a machine-readable format (Article 50(2)). The agency, as deployer using the tool under its own authority, must disclose on the publication that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated (Article 50(4)). Meeting one does not discharge the other.

What wording should a listing use?

The Regulation prescribes no set formula. It requires information given « in a clear and distinguishable manner at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure » (Article 50(5)). Wording such as « Image edited using artificial intelligence, for illustration purposes », placed next to the photo in the listing, meets that. What matters is that it is visible at the same time as the visual, not buried in footer legal text.

How do I check that a photo carries a machine-readable marking?

The expected marking is information written into the file's metadata, invisible on screen. Recital 133 of the Regulation expressly cites « metadata identifications » among the acceptable techniques, alongside watermarks and cryptographic methods for proving provenance: it is not a fallback, it is one of the techniques the text itself names. The standard field is « DigitalSourceType », defined by the IPTC, and its value for AI-produced content is « trainedAlgorithmicMedia ». To read it, download the file and use ExifTool, free on Windows, macOS and Linux: « exiftool -XMP-iptcExt:DigitalSourceType your-photo.jpg ». If the command prints an address ending in « trainedAlgorithmicMedia », the file is marked. If it prints nothing, it is not. The check works on video as well as images, and it applies to any tool on the market, not just yours.

My editing tool does not mark its outputs: am I in breach?

No, not on the machine-readable marking: that obligation sits with the provider, meaning the software vendor (Article 50(2)). You remain bound by your own duty to disclose on the publication (Article 50(4)), and that one depends on no tool. In practice it is worth writing to your vendor to ask what it has put in place under Article 50(2) and from what date. The reply, or the absence of one, documents your own diligence and belongs in the internal note described above.

What are the penalties?

Breach of the Article 50 transparency obligations is subject to administrative fines of up to EUR 15 000 000 or, for an undertaking, up to 3 % of total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher (Article 99(4)(g)). For SMEs and start-ups, Article 99(6) reverses this: whichever of the two is lower applies. These are ceilings, not tariffs: Article 99 requires the circumstances of each case to be taken into account.

Does an exposure fix or a perspective correction need disclosing?

The test is resemblance to an existing place that could falsely appear authentic (Article 3(60)). An exposure fix or straightened verticals do not change what the photo shows: they correct the capture. Staging, decluttering or a renovation preview change what is depicted. That is where the line sits. Where an intermediate treatment is genuinely borderline, disclosing is the prudent call: a disclosure line has never lost anyone an instruction.

Does this apply to agencies outside the EU?

The Regulation is EU law, but its reach follows use rather than establishment: it bites where the AI system is used within the Union, including where the vendor is established elsewhere. An agency marketing EU property to EU buyers should assume it is in scope. A purely domestic UK or US agency is outside this particular text, though other advertising and consumer-protection rules on misleading imagery will still apply locally.

Is this legal advice?

No. It sets out a direct reading of the text as published in the Official Journal, with the references needed to verify it article by article. It does not account for Commission guidelines, the codes of practice envisaged in Article 50(7), or national implementing rules. Have your own counsel validate before you adopt an internal policy.

Regulatory guideExpert analysis

AI Act and listing photos: who discloses what, exactly

Since 2 August 2026, an agency publishing an AI-generated or AI-edited property photo must disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated (Article 50(4)). Machine-readable marking of the file is a separate obligation, and it sits with the software vendor (Article 50(2)). Two duties, two different parties.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 has applied since 2 August 2026. It creates two distinct obligations that are routinely conflated: machine-readable marking of the file, which falls on the software vendor (the « provider »), and disclosure on the publication itself, which falls on the agency that publishes (the « deployer »). This guide isolates what actually falls on an estate agency, cites the articles behind it, sets out four concrete steps, and gives the command that lets you check on a file whether your tool really marks its outputs.

Try CasaNova for free Ask the team a question

AI-staged living room in a property listing, subject to the EU AI Act disclosure requirement

A virtually staged living room resembles an existing place and would falsely appear authentic to a viewer, which is precisely the definition of a « deep fake » under Article 3(60).

What an agency needs to take away

The essentials of this analysis, in one read.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 has applied since 2 August 2026 (Article 113). The transparency obligations in Article 50 are enforceable as of that date: the deadline has passed, there is no preparation period left.

A property photo that has been staged, decluttered or renovated by AI falls within the definition of a « deep fake »: the text expressly covers resemblance to existing « places » (Article 3(60)).

The publishing agency must disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated, in a clear and distinguishable manner, at the latest at the time of first exposure (Article 50(4) and (5)). Machine-readable marking is the vendor's duty (Article 50(2)).

Who this guide is for

This guide covers one narrow question: transparency for listing visuals produced or edited with AI. It does not cover the rest of the Regulation (high-risk systems, general-purpose AI models, prohibited practices).

Agency principals and compliance leads who need to decide, in practice, what goes on a listing and what does not.

Agents and brokers using a virtual staging tool who need to know whether disclosure is theirs or their vendor's responsibility.

Property marketing managers producing AI visuals for portals and social channels, looking for wording they can drop into their listing templates.

What sits with us, what stays with you

The split is set by the text itself, not by a commercial contract. A vendor cannot pass its duty to its customers, and a customer cannot offload theirs onto their vendor.

Marking outputs in a machine-readable format is the provider's obligation, meaning the software vendor's (Article 50(2)). That one is ours, not yours: you are not expected to embed technical markers in the file yourself.

Disclosure on the publication is the deployer's obligation, meaning yours, as soon as you use the tool under your own authority in a professional capacity (Article 3(4) and Article 50(4)). Nobody can carry it for you.

CasaNova preserves the building's geometry, walls, openings and perspective, because regulatory compliance and an honest listing are not the same thing: a properly disclosed photo that moves a wall is still a commercial problem, and one governed by other law entirely.

Provider or deployer: the distinction that decides your duty

The Regulation defines both roles in Article 3. A single photo triggers two obligations at two different points in the chain. This is the distinction most compliance summaries flatten, and it is the one that determines what you actually have to do.

Criterion	Provider (the software vendor)	Deployer (the publishing agency)
Definition in the text	A person or body that develops an AI system, or has one developed, and places it on the market or puts it into service under its own name or trademark (Article 3(3)).	A person or body using an AI system under its authority, except in the course of a personal non-professional activity (Article 3(4)).
The exact duty	Ensure outputs are « marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated » (Article 50(2)).	Disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated, where it constitutes a deep fake (Article 50(4)).
Expected form	A technical solution carried in the file. Recital 133 cites « watermarks, metadata identifications, cryptographic methods for proving provenance and authenticity ».	Information given « in a clear and distinguishable manner at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure » (Article 50(5)).
Who carries it when you use an off-the-shelf tool	The vendor, including where it is established outside the Union, as long as the tool is used within the Union.	You, the agency. Your vendor meeting its own obligation does not discharge yours.
Exposure	Up to EUR 15 000 000 or 3 % of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher (Article 99(4)(g)).	Same ceiling. For SMEs and start-ups, Article 99(6) reverses it: whichever of the two is lower applies.

Four concrete steps

None of these four requires a budget. They require a decision, a template update, and a check you can run yourself on a file.

1. Inventory the visuals in scope

Go through your visual types: staging an empty room, decluttering, restyling, renovation previews, sky replacement, exposure correction.

The test is not « did you use AI » but « does the result resemble an existing place closely enough that it could falsely appear authentic » (Article 3(60)). An exposure fix and a full staging are not the same case.

2. Put the disclosure in the listing template

Add fixed wording to your listing templates and portal feeds instead of leaving it to each negotiator. For example: « Image edited using artificial intelligence, for illustration purposes. »

The text requires clear and distinguishable information at the latest at the time of first exposure (Article 50(5)). A line in the template is exposed alongside the photo; a line added by hand gets forgotten.

3. Write your practice down

Keep a one-page internal note: which visuals are in scope, what wording you use, from what date, which tool you use, and what its vendor commits to under Article 50(2).

Under scrutiny the question will be « what did you put in place, and since when ». A dated written practice can be evidenced. An oral one cannot.

4. Check that your tool really marks its outputs

Download an image produced by the tool you use and read its metadata with ExifTool, free on Windows, macOS and Linux: « exiftool -XMP-iptcExt:DigitalSourceType your-photo.jpg ». The standard value for AI-produced content is « trainedAlgorithmicMedia ».

An empty answer means the file carries no machine-readable marking. That is not your duty, it is the vendor's, but you are the one publishing the file. The check takes a minute and gives you a written answer to put to your supplier.

What the text does not require

An anxious reading leads agencies to overdo it, which damages the listing without improving compliance. Three clarifications.

It does not require a banner covering the photo. It requires clear and distinguishable information at the latest at the time of first exposure (Article 50(5)): a legible line next to the visual satisfies that.

It does not require the agency to embed watermarks or metadata in the file. Machine-readable marking is the provider's duty (Article 50(2)), not the deployer's.

It does not reach personal non-professional use: deployer status presupposes use under your own authority in a professional capacity (Article 3(4)). A separate carve-out exists for evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional works, but a property listing is none of those, and relying on it would be a mistake.

What triggers the duty, in pictures

The test in the Regulation is about the perceived result, not the technique used. Removing an element and altering one fall under the same rule as the staging shown above.

Before

After CasaNova

Same bedroom emptied of its furniture by AI, a visual subject to the disclosure requirement

Decluttering: the furniture is removed and the floor and walls are reconstructed. The photo shows an existing place in a state that is not its own: removing falls within Article 3(60) just as adding does.

Before

After CasaNova

Same wall repainted plain blue by AI on a property listing

Altering a finish: the volume and the furniture are preserved, only the wall changes. A buyer viewing the property finds a different state from the listing, and disclosure covers that gap.

Decision-focused FAQ

The questions that genuinely come up before choosing a tool or an alternative for a property marketing workflow.

A tool that does not leave you alone with this

Machine-readable marking is the vendor's duty, not yours. Visuals produced by CasaNova carry that marking in their metadata, images and video alike, and the command given above lets you see it on a downloaded file. What remains is your disclosure line on the listing, which this guide lets you settle once.

Try CasaNova for free Ask the team a question

The deciding point

What genuinely makes the difference when an agency compares two visual workflows.

Business decision

Where CasaNova stands

CasaNova is the recommendation here for agencies that want a photo and video workflow that is more complete, easier to read and simpler to roll out.

Verified sources

The pages used to check the claims, prices and public positioning cited in this analysis.

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401689 data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj