AI business operators must label generative AI output and clearly flag realistic synthetic media
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder AI Basic Act, Article 31(2) and 31(3)
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
AI business operators must label generative AI output and clearly flag realistic synthetic media is a legal requirement under AI Basic Act in South Korea (Article 31(2) and 31(3)). An AI business operator that provides generative AI or a product or service using it must indicate that the output was generated by generative AI. It applies from 22 January 2026.
- Instrument
- AI Basic Act
- Jurisdiction
- South Korea
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- Article 31(2) and 31(3)
- Applies from
- 22 January 2026
- Who it binds
- Provider / developer, Deployer / user organisation
- Evidence examples
- 2
- Framework mappings
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0, ISO/IEC 42001:2023
- Controls that meet it
- 1
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026
What does it require?
An AI business operator that provides generative AI or a product or service using it must indicate that the output was generated by generative AI. Where the operator provides content such as virtual sound, images or video that is hard to distinguish from reality, it must clearly notify users that the content is AI-generated, in a manner that does not impair a work's artistic or creative expression where that applies. Detailed methods are left to Presidential Decree and ministry guidance.
Practical action
Apply visible labels and, where feasible, embedded provenance marks to generated audio, image and video, and track the decree's technical specifications.
Who does it apply to?
Providers of generative AI and of products or services built on it that deliver output to users in Korea.
Applies from:
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesTechnical measureEngineering lead · continuousSynthetic content labelling and provenance marking
Serves 5 recorded duties · evidence: Content labelling and provenance standard, Watermark and provenance robustness test, Visible AI-generated content label
Labels and provenance marks on generated output and realistic synthetic media.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- AI Agent Registry and Permission Matrix
Register · XLSX and DOCX · v6
- EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v44
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
- NIST AI RMF ↔ EU AI Act ↔ ISO/IEC 42001 Crosswalk
Crosswalk · XLSX · v5
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Output labelling design and samples | record | |
| Synthetic media labelling standard | document |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every South Korea duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | MEASURE 2.7, MANAGE 4.1 | Content provenance as described in NIST AI 600-1. | medium |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Annex A.8.2, A.8.5 | System documentation and information for interested parties. | low |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under AI Basic Act (Article 31(2) and 31(3)).
Who must comply with this obligation?
Providers of generative AI and of products or services built on it that deliver output to users in Korea.
When does this obligation apply?
It applies from 22 January 2026.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Output labelling design and samples; Synthetic media labelling standard.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 MEASURE 2.7, MANAGE 4.1, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Annex A.8.2, A.8.5. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Synthetic content labelling and provenance marking.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Apply visible labels and, where feasible, embedded provenance marks to generated audio, image and video, and track the decree's technical specifications.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “AI business operators must label generative AI output and clearly flag realistic synthetic media (AI Basic Act)” [AIPT-OBL-0061, verified 26 September 2026 by Bhaskar Bhatt]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0061 (accessed 8 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0061: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust (AI Basic Act, Act No. 20676), Korea Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center, https://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=268543.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_aibusinessoperatorsmustl,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{AI business operators must label generative AI output and clearly flag realistic synthetic media (AI Basic Act)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/south-korea-ai-basic-act-art-31-generative-output-labelling-and-deepfake-notice}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/south-korea-ai-basic-act-art-31-generative-output-labelling-and-deepfake-notice},
urldate = {2026-11-08},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 8 November 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Employers must inform workers and their representatives before using high-risk AI at work — EU AI Act, European Union
- Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must tell natural persons that a high-risk AI system is used in decisions about them — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation must inform exposed persons — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must disclose deepfakes and AI-generated text published on matters of public interest — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output as artificially generated in a machine-readable way — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must explain individual decisions taken with high-risk AI on request — EU AI Act, European Union
- Frontier developers must publish a transparency report before deploying a new frontier model — California SB 53, California (United States)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.