South Korea's AI Basic Act sets a transparency duty

The persona

No single persona anchors this entry. The subject is South Korea's Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness, known by its short title as the AI Basic Act, administered by the Ministry of Science and ICT. The statute governs any business providing AI-based products or services to the public in Korea, reaching the technology behind a synthetic persona's output as much as any other AI system.

What the documents establish

The statute's own text, retrieved through the Ministry of Government Legislation's official law database, shows the version now in force was promulgated 20 January 2026 as a partial amendment, with most provisions effective 22 January 2026, and a few phased in later, on 21 July 2026. Article 31, the Duty to Ensure AI Transparency, requires an operator offering a product built on high-impact or generative AI to notify users in advance that it operates on that basis; requires an operator offering generative AI to mark its output as generative-AI-produced; and requires an operator offering a virtual sound, image, or video output hard to distinguish from reality to clearly notify users that the output was AI-generated. The Ministry's own law search record confirms the statute sits under the Ministry of Science and ICT's jurisdiction and lists the same dates.

Character versus company

Article 31 places the notice and marking duty on the AI business operator, not on any character the underlying system produces; a synthetic persona's video or audio output is, under this statute, the operator's disclosure obligation to meet, not evidence of the persona's own transparency. The law carves out a narrower marking standard for outputs that are or form part of an artistic or creative work, allowing disclosure in a form that does not interfere with the work's exhibition or enjoyment, suggesting regulators anticipated persona-driven content needing different treatment than a straightforward informational deep fake.

What to watch

The retrieved text documents the law's current, amended form and its effective dates; it does not establish the statute's full legislative history, including the date of its original enactment, which a reviewer should confirm against the National Assembly's own record. This is an editorial read: because the method and exceptions for Article 31's duties are left to a presidential decree the retrieved text does not include, the labelling requirement's practical scope depends on implementing rules not yet reviewed here.

• What does the presidential decree implementing Article 31's notice and marking methods specify, once located and reviewed?
• Has the Ministry of Science and ICT applied the administrative fine tied to a failure to give the advance notice required under Article 31?
• Does a given persona's operator mark its generative-AI or hard-to-distinguish outputs in the manner Article 31 requires for users inside Korea?

The AI Basic Act's Article 31 sets a transparency duty administered by the Ministry of Science and ICT, running from a text most recently amended in January 2026 and taking effect that same month. Confirming the statute's full legislative history, and the content of the implementing presidential decree, remains work for a reviewer with access to those additional records.