Summary:
Le 7 mars 2025, le Bureau national de l’information sur Internet de la Chine, le ministère de l’Industrie et des Technologies de l’information, le ministère de la Sécurité publique et l’Administration nationale de la radio et de la télévision ont publié les ‘Mesures pour l’identification du contenu synthétique généré par l’IA.’ Cela vise à réglementer l’identification du contenu généré par l’IA, à garantir les droits légaux et à protéger les intérêts publics. Les dispositions clés incluent des exigences de marquage explicites et implicites pour le contenu généré par l’IA, des devoirs pour les fournisseurs de services afin d’assurer la conformité, et des normes d’incorporation de métadonnées pour une identification précise. Ces mesures sont entrées en vigueur le 1er septembre 2025.
Original Link:
Generated Article:
On March 7, 2025, four major regulatory bodies in China—the Cyberspace Administration of China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, and the National Radio and Television Administration—jointly released the “Artificial Intelligence-Generated Synthetic Content Identification Measures.” This policy will take effect on September 1, 2025. It aims to regulate how artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content, encompassing everything from text and images to videos and synthetic virtual environments, must be identified and disclosed. This regulatory framework seeks to ensure the healthy development of AI technologies while safeguarding public interest and individual rights.
### Legal Context
These measures are legally grounded in preexisting laws and regulations such as the “Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Provisions on the Administration of Algorithm Recommendation for Internet Information Services,” the “Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis for Internet Information Services,” and the “Interim Measures for the Administration of Generative AI Services.” These legislative instruments collectively form the legal bedrock for combatting potential misuse of AI technologies, such as misinformation, fraud, and intellectual property violations. For instance, Article 16 of the “Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis” mandates service providers add metadata and other markers to AI-generated content. The new measures reiterate and expand upon this principle, requiring both explicit and implicit identifiers to be embedded in AI-generated outputs.
### Key Requirements Under the New Measures
Explicit identifiers must be made visible to users interacting with AI-generated content. For example, AI-generated text must include markers like textual prompts at appropriate positions (e.g., beginning, middle, or end), while audio content requires voice or rhythm cues, and videos must feature on-screen watermarks or captions. Implicit identifiers, on the other hand, involve embedding metadata into the file itself, such as service provider details and content origin codes. Such markers, like digital watermarks, allow for later identification even if visible indicators have been stripped away.
Notably, the measures require platforms to verify metadata and take corrective actions where AI-generated content lacks proper identifiers. Developers of generative AI applications are also obligated to disclose whether their tools facilitate content generation during app store approval processes.
### Ethical Considerations
Ethically, these measures respond to widespread concerns about transparency and accountability in AI usage. Rapid innovations in generative AI have fueled opportunities for disinformation, identity theft, and societal disruption through the spread of hyper-realistic synthetic media. By enforcing labeling requirements, the law emphasizes user awareness and informed consent, effectively protecting individuals from deceit. It also seeks to deter bad actors from erasing or falsifying indicators of AI origin, which could undermine trust in digital media.
However, some ethical dilemmas remain unanswered. For example, how will enforcement handle edge cases, such as when deceptive intentions are ambiguous? And does this level of control over AI outputs encroach upon the creative freedoms of artists and developers? Striking a balance between innovation and regulation is undoubtedly fraught with challenges.
### Industry Implications
These measures bear significant implications for AI developers, content platforms, and users alike. Companies operating in the generative AI space must now allocate resources to integrate labeling technologies that meet these legal requirements. The policy’s emphasis on digital watermarks and metadata tracking could drive innovation in content authentication but may also increase operational costs. For instance, a video platform like TikTok will need to develop or enhance its internal systems to detect and label user-uploaded AI-altered media comprehensively.
Moreover, noncompliance carries serious consequences: regulatory agencies reserve the right to impose penalties under the “Cybersecurity Law” and others. These could range from fines to bans on business operations. By creating a standardized approach to disclosure, the policy may also establish a framework that other nations could consider emulating, potentially impacting global media norms.
In sum, these measures represent a critical step toward fostering responsible AI innovation while mitigating risks to digital trust and societal welfare. While challenges of enforcement and adaptation loom on the horizon, the new regulatory regime underscores China’s proactive stance on managing AI’s transformative—and potentially disruptive—impact on society.