EU AI Act Article 50 asset register

Nobody Can Tell You Which Campaign Assets Were AI-Made

The hero image came out of Midjourney, the explainer used a synthetic presenter, half the product copy was drafted by a model, and the voice on the podcast read was never in the room. Six months later somebody asks which of it carries machine-readable marking, which needed a visible disclosure, and which deadline applied. Nobody kept a list. This is the list — one row per asset, with the verdict, the deadline and the fix already worked out.

Buy Now — $19 One-time payment · no subscription · works offline
Machine-readable marking Visible disclosure Generating tool trail 2 Aug vs 2 Dec 2026 deadlines CSV audit record

What the register tells you at a glance

Every asset gets a verdict, not just a row. The dashboard shows how much of your in-scope output is actually marked, which deadline each gap falls under, and what to fix first.

41%
In-scope readiness 28 assets logged · 22 published to an EU audience · as at 18 August 2026 7 assets carry no marking and the 2 Aug 2026 deadline has already passed
Machine-readable marking
45%
Visible disclosure
62%
Overall in-scope readiness
41%
Gaps ranked by urgency
OverdueAutumn launch hero banner — Midjourney v7 — marking absent
OverduePodcast ad read — synthetic voice, no visible disclosure on the paid cut
2 DecFounder explainer — disclosure card missing from social variants
ReviewProduct description set (42 SKUs) — provenance metadata unverified
LoggedUS-only retargeting carousel — out of scope, recorded for completeness

Why a register and not a spreadsheet somebody made once

A spreadsheet records what you typed. This works out the verdict for you, applies the right deadline to each asset, and gives you something dated to hand over.

Marking and disclosure tracked separately

Article 50 asks two different things: machine-readable marking on the output, and a clear visible disclosure where the content shows realistic people, voices, places or events. An asset can pass one and fail the other, so the register scores them apart and only demands a visible disclosure where it applies.

The right deadline per asset

Obligations bite immediately for systems placed on the market after 2 August 2026, and on 2 December 2026 for tools already on the market before that date. Grandfathering follows the generating system, not the asset, so each entry records which basis applies and counts down against it.

Tool-by-tool audit trail

Every row names the model or tool that produced the asset. When a vendor turns marking on, or you find one that never emitted it, you can filter straight to every affected asset instead of guessing which campaigns used which tool.

Export the record, not a screenshot

CSV for the compliance file or a shared drive, JSON for a backup you can reload. The export carries the verdict and the reasoning beside each asset, so the person reading it six months later does not have to reconstruct your thinking.

Built for the team that actually ships the creative

Not for counsel, and not for a governance platform nobody in marketing has a login to.

In-house marketing teams

You commissioned the AI creative and you own the answer when someone asks what was generated and whether it was labelled. Keep one register per brand and update it as assets ship.

Agencies and studios

Log each client's assets separately and hand over a dated CSV with the campaign. A marking record attached to delivery is cheap to produce and awkward to be without.

Content and brand ops

You are the one who finds out a tool never emitted provenance metadata. Filter by tool, see every affected asset, and work the remediation list rather than a memory of which campaigns used it.

Anyone preparing for a review

Whether it is a client audit, an internal sign-off or a regulator's question, the useful artefact is a dated register showing what you checked and when. That is the whole output.

“We know roughly half of it was AI. We could not tell you which half.”

Enterprise AI-governance platforms are priced for enterprises and sold to a risk team. Counsel bills by the hour and starts by asking you to list the assets — the list you do not have. Between those two there was nothing structured, cheap and owned by the marketing team itself — that is what this is.

One self-contained HTML file. No accounts, no API keys, no network calls, nothing uploaded. It installs to your phone or desktop home screen, works offline, and every entry stays in your own browser. Built by Mulkern AI Systems, who ship AI operations tooling for marketing teams.

A structured record-keeping aid, not legal advice. It helps you find the gaps and decide what to take to counsel — it does not replace them.

$19
One-time purchase · lifetime access · no subscription
  • Unlimited asset entries across campaigns and clients
  • Automatic verdict: compliant, needs review, gap, or out of scope
  • Marking and visible-disclosure status tracked separately
  • Per-asset deadline: 2 Aug 2026 or the 2 Dec 2026 grandfather date
  • Readiness dashboard with marking and disclosure coverage
  • Generating tool and campaign owner recorded on every row
  • Notes and remediation field per asset
  • Search, filter by verdict, and risk-first sorting
  • Export as CSV or JSON backup
  • Installable PWA — works fully offline
  • Light and dark themes, mobile-ready
Buy Now — $19

Instant access after checkout. No refunds. All sales are final.