AI visualisations and the AI Act: when you must label them

AI image generators reached apartment sales faster than any tool before them. In a few minutes you can furnish an empty unit, add greenery to a courtyard or "improve" the view from a window. Since 2 August 2026, however, such images fall under the transparency obligations of the EU AI Act, and consumer law still applies alongside it.

This article explains when an apartment or development visualisation made with AI has to be labelled, how to do it in practice and why a label alone is not always enough. It reflects the situation on 26 October 2026, with Polish rules where they matter. It is a practical overview, not legal advice. For a specific campaign or development, talk to a lawyer.

What Article 50 of the AI Act says

The AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, splits the obligations in Article 50 between two parties:

• providers of image-generating systems, i.e. the companies that build the generators. They must mark generated content in a machine-readable way, for example with a watermark or metadata,
• deployers, i.e. businesses that use such systems in their work. If an image generated or altered by AI is a "deep fake", they must disclose that it has been artificially generated or manipulated.

A developer, sales office or agency that generates images for its listings is a deployer, and the visible label is its responsibility. The European Commission's guidelines state plainly that a deployer cannot rely only on the invisible mark the generator embedded in the file.

Is an apartment visualisation a "deep fake"?

The term brings to mind fake videos of politicians, but the definition is broader. Under Article 3(60) of the AI Act, a deep fake is 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.

The Commission's guidelines on Article 50, published in July 2026, clarify several points that matter for property:

• what counts is resemblance to something that exists, could plausibly exist or could have existed. The image does not have to show a specific building that already stands,
• intent to deceive is irrelevant. The test is objective: whether the audience, in that context, would take the image as real,
• photorealism makes deep-fake status more likely but does not decide it on its own,
• the Commission's examples include AI-generated marketing content that makes products appear different from reality. Such content needs a label.

In apartment sales the most exposed images are those that look like photographs: virtual home staging made with a generator on a photo of a real apartment, a "cleaned up" or greener view from the window, a finished façade painted onto a construction-site photo. A buyer may take them for photos, so they meet the definition.

Classic 3D renders, familiar from development banners, are less clear-cut. If they were made in modelling software without generative AI, Article 50 does not apply, because the AI Act regulates AI systems, not imagery as such. If a generator added significant elements to them, that changes. Minor processing such as noise reduction or cropping, on the other hand, is standard editing according to the Commission, not the generation of new content.

The creative exception is narrow

Article 50 softens the obligation for content that is part of an evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional work. In that case it is enough to disclose the use of AI in a way that does not spoil the work.

This is not an exception to build a strategy on. The Commission reads it narrowly: purely informative and commercial content does not qualify, and where material mixes informative and creative elements, the informative character prevails. An image in an apartment listing exists to tell the buyer what the unit looks like, so it is hard to call it "evidently artistic".

How to label in practice

The AI Act requires the information to be clear, distinguishable and given at the latest at the first exposure to the content. Some practical conclusions:

• the label should sit on the image itself or right next to it. According to the Commission, a mention in the website footer, terms or privacy policy is unlikely to be enough,
• the Commission's code of practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content, published in June 2026, provides an EU icon for AI-generated content. Using it satisfies the requirement under the code, but other designs that meet the code's criteria are also possible,
• the label must travel with the image wherever it goes: property portals, PDF brochures, banners. A portal that only displays your listing does not take over your obligation,
• a plain caption such as "Visualisation generated with AI" or "Interior styling generated by AI" is clear to any buyer.

When it applies and who enforces it

Article 50 has applied since 2 August 2026. Content generated before that date does not need to be labelled retroactively, although the Commission encourages doing so where possible. The July 2026 amendment to the AI Act gave providers of generators already on the market before 2 August 2026 until 2 December 2026 to implement machine-readable marking. That does not change the deployers' duty to label deep fakes visibly.

In Poland, the market surveillance authority for AI systems is the Commission for the Development and Security of Artificial Intelligence (KRiBSI), set up by the Polish act on artificial intelligence systems of 3 July 2026. Among other things it can issue individual opinions, which helps in borderline cases. Breaching Article 50 can lead to fines of up to EUR 15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher; for small and medium-sized businesses the cap is the lower of the two.

The AI Act is not the whole story: consumer law

A label tells the buyer how an image was made. It does not change what the image shows. The Polish act on counteracting unfair market practices, which implements the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, prohibits misleading actions that may lead the average consumer to a decision they would not otherwise take. It applies to every visualisation, AI or not.

If an image shows a park that will not be built, a view that does not exist, rooms larger than on the floor plan or a finish better than the contract, an "AI" or "illustrative visualisation" caption will not fix it. Such cases are a matter for UOKiK, Poland's consumer protection authority, and practices that infringe the collective interests of consumers can be fined up to 10% of turnover.

A checklist for the sales team

Where AI helps and where to avoid it

AI works well for concept sketches, styling options to discuss with a client, or backgrounds for material that does not pretend to be a photo of a specific apartment. It is a poorer fit for images a buyer uses to judge floor area, layout and light. General-purpose image generators can move a wall, widen a window or "add" a few square metres.

That is why we make 3D visualisations on a model built from the floor plan, and in STAGR the model is created from a scaled floor plan, so the geometry and dimensions match the documentation. Such images are still worth captioning as a visualisation with example styling. If you are tidying up the images in your listings or planning a new development, let's talk.