{"id":103294,"date":"2026-08-19T13:47:05","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T12:47:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=103294"},"modified":"2026-08-19T15:17:15","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T14:17:15","slug":"ai-watermark-attorneys","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/","title":{"rendered":"What does the invisible AI watermark mean for lawyers?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since August 2, 2026, the latest AI language models have been embedding an invisible watermark in every text they generate. Anthropic, the company behind the Claude language model, announced in mid-August<\/a> how it fulfills an obligation under European AI legislation. For Belgian lawyers, this milestone does not change the rules themselves: the use of AI remains permitted, and there is no ethical obligation to disclose it to the client. What does change, however, is that the use of AI must now be technically verifiable, making agreements with the client more important than ever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A watermark that is embedded in the wording itself<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If you think of a watermark as a logo in the corner of a photo, a hidden symbol, or a line of metadata in the file, you\u2019re wrong. A text watermark is none of those things. It\u2019s embedded in the text itself\u2014more specifically, in the choice of words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For each word, a language model calculates a list of candidates, each of which fits equally well. After \u201cthe court has \u2026,\u201d either \u201cdismissed\u201d or \u201crejected\u201d can follow. For the reader, the choice makes no difference. It is precisely in that freedom of choice that the watermark lies: the model is fed a secret preference list and, whenever multiple words are equally suitable, chooses a word from that list just slightly more often. A single word choice means nothing. Over hundreds of words, a statistical pattern emerges that a detector with the correct key can detect, while a human reader notices nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This technique has two practical consequences. The watermark travels with the text: copying it to Word, converting it to PDF, or stripping out the metadata doesn\u2019t change a thing, because the signal is embedded in the words themselves. At the same time, the watermark is ephemeral: anyone who thoroughly rewrites, paraphrases, or translates the text will gradually erase the pattern. Anthropic also warns that very short passages contain too little material for a reliable measurement. A three-line clause, therefore, proves nothing, whereas a thirty-page conclusion might.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the AI Regulation makes this watermark mandatory<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This obligation stems from Article 50, paragraph 2, of the Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689 on Artificial Intelligence<\/a> (the AI Regulation or AI Act). Providers of AI systems that generate synthetic text, images, audio, or video must ensure that the output is labeled in a machine-readable format and is detectable as artificially generated. These transparency requirements have been in effect since August 2, 2026. The European Commission also facilitated a Code of Practice on the Transparency of AI-Generated Content<\/a>, which Anthropic has signed. Specifically, Claude models launched on or after August 2, 2026, will include the text watermark from day one; for older models, there is a transition period. In addition, files such as images will be provided with cryptographically signed provenance metadata in accordance with the C2PA standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is important for the lawyer is what Article 50 does not do. The disclosure obligation under paragraph 2 rests with the provider of the AI system, not with the user. For users, Article 50(4) does contain a separate disclosure requirement, but this applies to text only when it is published to inform the public about matters of general interest, and even then, it does not apply if the text has undergone human review or editorial oversight and someone bears editorial responsibility for it. Legal advice to a client or a brief filed in court is not published to inform the public and therefore falls outside the scope of that provision. Even a law firm\u2019s legal blog is exempt from this requirement as soon as a lawyer proofreads the text and signs it. For those interested in comparing the disclosure requirement for visual material: we analyzed that previously in response to the labeling requirement for deepfakes<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, there is no European rule requiring a lawyer to disclose in his or her legal opinion that a language model was used in drafting it. The question therefore shifts to national law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Belgian professional ethics rules say about lawyers' use of AI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On January 20, 2025, the Flemish Bar Association and Avocats.be jointly published guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence<\/a> by lawyers. The guidelines do not create new obligations but apply existing ethical standards to a new technology. The basic principle is twofold: the use of AI is neither prohibited nor mandatory. The choice is at the lawyer\u2019s discretion, and the consequences are his responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That freedom is, however, subject to certain restrictions. The lawyer remains bound by Article 455 of the Judicial Code<\/a> (Jud. C.) and Article 1 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers<\/a>: dignity, integrity, and discretion; the proper and professional practice of the profession; respect for professional confidentiality; and independence and impartiality. The guidelines translate these into four specific duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the lawyer understands the basic functioning of language models. Anyone who does not understand that a language model essentially predicts words rather than consulting sources cannot assess the risks. Second, the lawyer reviews the tool\u2019s terms of use: Is the model trained on the input data? Where is the data stored? Is it an open or a closed system? Third, the lawyer verifies the results, including every cited statute, every court decision, and every reference to legal doctrine. And fourth, the lawyer remains ultimately responsible for the output: all standard liability rules continue to apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of confidentiality, the guidelines set a high standard, but they do not include a prohibition. The lawyer shall not submit documents covered by lawyer-client privilege unless he is certain that the application operates in Lawyer-client privilege is enshrined in Article 18 of the Codex and Article 458 of the Criminal Code<\/a> (Cc.) penalizes the disclosure of such data. Anyone who entrusts data to a processor bound by a confidentiality agreement and that does not train on the input is not disclosing anything: a business AI environment with a data processing agreement can therefore suffice, just as cloud-based email and external file management have done for years. Personal data is pseudonymized before it enters a prompt, unless its processing is essential and based on a legal ground under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)<\/a> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One guideline stands out in the watermark debate: the lawyer is not required to inform the client that he is using AI, any more than he is required to disclose which word processor or database he uses. That position makes sense as long as the lawyer reviews the output and bears responsibility for it. But it is an ethical minimum, not a contractual ceiling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the watermark changes that<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The watermark does not establish any new standard. However, it does change the burden of proof in three respects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the mandate. The relationship between lawyer and client is contractual, and the client may restrict or prohibit the use of AI tools\u2014for example, because their own policy or that of their insurer requires it. If the client has issued such an instruction, a lawyer who ignores it is in breach of contract, watermark or not. However, until now, such a breach has generally gone unnoticed. Once detection tools become available, a client will be able to have the advice provided reviewed. The watermark does not create the problem, but it makes it possible to identify it. Anyone who has not addressed AI in their engagement letter would therefore be wise to have that conversation now, before a detection tool does it for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, the evidential value. A detected watermark does not prove that the language model generated the text. Anthropic itself lists the limitations: even text written by a human and merely proofread, translated, or summarized by the model bears the mark. Conversely, the absence of a watermark does not prove that no AI was involved: the text may come from an older model, have been heavily edited, or simply be too short for a reliable measurement. A detection result is information about the text\u2019s origin, not proof of an error. Anyone seeking to demonstrate an ethical violation or a breach of contract based on a watermark will therefore need to present more than just the detection report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, quality control, because that is where the real risk lies. In April 2026, the Flemish Bar Association highlighted two rulings that demonstrate what happens when AI output enters the proceedings without being reviewed. The Council of State emphasized in a ruling no. 265,712<\/a> that conducting a proceeding properly requires the expertise of a lawyer and that artificial intelligence cannot replace that judgment. The Antwerp Court of Appeal went in a ruling of March 25, 2026<\/a> (2025\/AR\/774) a step further: conclusions drafted with the help of AI led to chaotic litigation with constantly shifting facts and legal grounds, and the court addressed this by imposing an increased litigation fee. It was not the use of AI that was sanctioned, but rather the lack of oversight over it. This is exactly in line with the guidelines: the lawyer may use the technology, but remains ultimately responsible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For lawyers and law firms.<\/strong> Include the use of AI in the engagement letter. A brief clause will suffice: the firm may use AI tools as an aid, all output will be reviewed by a lawyer, and confidential information will be processed only in environments that ensure lawyer-client privilege. If you establish these guidelines, you won\u2019t have to worry about watermark detection later on. In addition, ask your software vendors the right questions: Which language model powers the legal tool the firm uses, does the output carry a watermark, and what happens to it when exported? After all, many lawyers use AI indirectly, through a legal application built on a large language model. The watermark from the underlying model is then carried over, even if the tool bears a different name. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For clients and businesses.<\/strong> Anyone who wishes to set requirements regarding their lawyer\u2019s use of AI must do so contractually: the code of ethics does not impose a duty on the lawyer to report such use spontaneously. Ask about this when confirming the engagement and set forth the agreement in writing. And anyone who runs a detection tool on a text they\u2019ve received should assess the result with due caution: a watermark simply indicates that a language model processed the text\u2014it does not mean the lawyer failed to do their job. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Is a lawyer required to inform his or her client that he or she is using AI?<\/strong>
No. The guidelines issued by the Flemish Bar Association and Avocats.be on January 20, 2025, explicitly state that a lawyer is not required to disclose the use of AI, any more than they are required to disclose the use of other IT applications. However, the client may contractually restrict the use of AI, in which case the lawyer must comply with those instructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does a detected watermark prove that a text was written by AI?<\/strong>
No. The watermark simply indicates that the language model processed the text. Even human-written text that has been proofread, translated, or restructured by the model bears the watermark. Conversely, the absence of a watermark does not rule out the use of AI, for example, in older models, heavily edited texts, or short passages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the watermark disappear when I edit or convert the text?<\/strong>
Don't convert it; rewrite it instead. The watermark is embedded in the choice of words itself and therefore survives copying, formatting changes, and file conversion. Thorough rewriting, paraphrasing, or translation gradually erases the statistical pattern. Light editing usually leaves the signal intact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The invisible AI watermark does not impose any new obligations on Belgian lawyers. Article 50 of the AI Regulation places the labeling obligation on the model provider, and the disclosure obligation for users does not apply to legal opinions and conclusions. The ethical standard remains the same as it has been since the guidelines of January 20, 2025: AI is permitted, provided that the lawyer reviews the output, protects client confidentiality, and bears ultimate responsibility. What the watermark does change, however, is visibility: agreements regarding AI use will now be verifiable in Belgium, and this makes the engagement letter the document where everything comes together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
Does your office or company use AI tools, and would you like to know what agreements you should put in place regarding their use, or do you have questions about the transparency requirements under the AI Regulation? Contact our lawyers specializing in AI law and data protection for an initial assessment of your case.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sinds 2 augustus 2026 weven de nieuwste AI-taalmodellen een onzichtbaar watermerk in elke tekst die zij genereren. Anthropic, het bedrijf achter het taalmodel Claude, maakte midden augustus bekend hoe het een verplichting uit de Europese AI-wetgeving invult. Voor Belgische advocaten verandert dat watermerk niets aan de regels zelf: AI-gebruik blijft toegestaan en er bestaat geen […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":103295,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[73],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-artificial-intelligence"],"yoast_head":"\nHet AI-watermerk: wat betekent het voor advocaten? | ICT Rechtswijzer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"AI-teksten dragen sinds augustus 2026 een onzichtbaar watermerk. Wat betekent dat voor advocaten, hun deontologie en de afspraken met cli\u00ebnten?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/ai-watermark-attorneys\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Wat betekent het onzichtbare AI-watermerk voor advocaten?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"AI-teksten dragen sinds augustus 2026 een onzichtbaar watermerk. Wat betekent dat voor advocaten, hun deontologie en de afspraken met cli\u00ebnten?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/ai-watermark-attorneys\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-19T12:47:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-19T14:17:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1709\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\"},\"headline\":\"Wat betekent het onzichtbare AI-watermerk voor advocaten?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-19T12:47:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-19T14:17:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1899,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Artificial Intelligence (AI)\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/\",\"name\":\"Het AI-watermerk: wat betekent het voor advocaten? | ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-19T12:47:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-19T14:17:15+00:00\",\"description\":\"AI-teksten dragen sinds augustus 2026 een onzichtbaar watermerk. Wat betekent dat voor advocaten, hun deontologie en de afspraken met cli\u00ebnten?\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1709},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Wat betekent het onzichtbare AI-watermerk voor advocaten?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"description\":\"Advocaten in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Organization\",\"LegalService\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"alternateName\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer, kennisplatform van Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"width\":638,\"height\":479,\"caption\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/be.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/everest-law\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.everest-law.eu\\\/\"],\"description\":\"Kennisplatform van het departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht van Everest Advocaten, onder leiding van mr. Joris Deene.\",\"parentOrganization\":{\"@type\":\"LegalService\",\"name\":\"Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.everest-law.eu\",\"address\":{\"@type\":\"PostalAddress\",\"streetAddress\":\"Bollebergen 2A bus 20\",\"postalCode\":\"9052\",\"addressLocality\":\"Gent\",\"addressCountry\":\"BE\"}}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\",\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Joris Deene\"},\"description\":\"Mr. Joris Deene is advocaat-partner bij Everest Advocaten en leidt het departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht. ICT Rechtswijzer is het kennisplatform van dat departement. Joris publiceert en doceert over auteursrecht, merkenrecht, softwarerecht, de AVG, de AI-Act, de DSA en het mediarecht.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/joris-deene-5144096\\\/\"],\"honorificPrefix\":\"Mr.\",\"knowsAbout\":[\"intellectuele eigendom\",\"auteursrecht\",\"merkenrecht\",\"IT-recht\",\"AI-recht\",\"gegevensbescherming\",\"AVG\",\"mediarecht\",\"digitaledienstenverordening\",\"AI-verordening\"],\"knowsLanguage\":[\"Nederlands\",\"Engels\",\"Frans\"],\"jobTitle\":\"Advocaat-partner, hoofd departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht\",\"worksFor\":\"Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/en\\\/author\\\/joris-deene\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The AI Watermark: What Does It Mean for Lawyers? | ICT Legal Guide","description":"Since August 2026, AI-generated texts have carried an invisible watermark. What does this mean for lawyers, their professional ethics, and their agreements with clients?","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/ai-watermark-attorneys\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Wat betekent het onzichtbare AI-watermerk voor advocaten?","og_description":"AI-teksten dragen sinds augustus 2026 een onzichtbaar watermerk. Wat betekent dat voor advocaten, hun deontologie en de afspraken met cli\u00ebnten?","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/ai-watermark-attorneys\/","og_site_name":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat","article_published_time":"2026-08-19T12:47:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-19T14:17:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1709,"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joris Deene","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joris Deene","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/"},"author":{"name":"Joris Deene","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685"},"headline":"Wat betekent het onzichtbare AI-watermerk voor advocaten?","datePublished":"2026-08-19T12:47:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-19T14:17:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/"},"wordCount":1899,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Artificial Intelligence (AI)"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/","name":"The AI Watermark: What Does It Mean for Lawyers? | ICT Legal Guide","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-19T12:47:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-19T14:17:15+00:00","description":"Since August 2026, AI-generated texts have carried an invisible watermark. What does this mean for lawyers, their professional ethics, and their agreements with clients?","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112118-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1709},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/ai-watermerk-advocaten\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Wat betekent het onzichtbare AI-watermerk voor advocaten?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","name":"ICT Lawyer","description":"Lawyers in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Organization","LegalService"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization","name":"ICT Legal Guide","alternateName":"ICT Rechtswijzer, kennisplatform van Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","width":638,"height":479,"caption":"ICT Rechtswijzer"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/be.linkedin.com\/company\/everest-law","https:\/\/www.everest-law.eu\/"],"description":"Knowledge platform of the Intellectual Property, IT Law, AI Law, Data Protection, and Media Law department at Everest Advocaten, led by Joris Deene, Esq.","parentOrganization":{"@type":"LegalService","name":"Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.everest-law.eu","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"Bollebergen 2A bus 20","postalCode":"9052","addressLocality":"Gent","addressCountry":"BE"}}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685","name":"Joris Deene","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Joris Deene"},"description":"Mr. Joris Deene is a partner at Everest Attorneys and heads the department of intellectual property, IT law, AI law, data protection, and media law. ICT Legal Guide is that department\u2019s knowledge platform. Joris publishes and teaches on copyright law, trademark law, software law, the GDPR, the AI Act, the DSA, and media law.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/joris-deene-5144096\/"],"honorificPrefix":"Mr.","knowsAbout":["intellectuele eigendom","auteursrecht","merkenrecht","IT-recht","AI-recht","gegevensbescherming","AVG","mediarecht","digitaledienstenverordening","AI-verordening"],"knowsLanguage":["Nederlands","Engels","Frans"],"jobTitle":"Advocaat-partner, hoofd departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht","worksFor":"Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/author\/joris-deene\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103294"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":103302,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103294\/revisions\/103302"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/103295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}