South Korean publishers set voluntary AI disclosure rules for books

South Korea’s publishing industry has adopted voluntary principles for the use of artificial intelligence in books, setting out disclosure, labelling and expectations for consent and fair compensation when published works are used as AI training data as publishers confront concerns over rapidly produced “click-to-publish” titles. The guidelines, announced Sept. 29 at a publishing and AI policy forum at Mapo Central Library in Seoul, say that humans remain the creators of books and bear ultimate responsibility for them. AI is to be treated as a tool, rather than an author or co-author. The five-chapter, 20-article document requires the fact and scope of AI use in making a book to be disclosed in a form readers can recognise. It also says that rights holders’ consent and fair compensation should be secured when published works are used as AI training data. The principles classify books according to human control and verification: human-authored works, AI-assisted works and AI-generated publications. They recommend labels for AI-assisted and AI-generated titles, so that readers can distinguish how a work was made. The framework regards works as human-authored when people remain the main creative agents, including where AI is confined to editing, proofreading, outlines or tables of contents. AI-assisted works include human-created material supplemented by AI, or AI-produced material thoroughly controlled and verified by people. A book is AI-generated where AI produced its content without sufficient human control or verification. That emphasis on control, rather than the share of sentences produced by AI, is central to the proposed classification system. For the latter two categories, it calls for disclosure of both AI use and the extent of human review. Authors are expected to declare the tools used and the degree of AI involvement in core content when submitting manuscripts, while publishers and authors are expected to record agreed AI use in their contracts. Between 11 and 12 publishing and authors’ organisations participated in preparing the principles, according to differing accounts by The Korea Times, Seoul Economic Daily and Asiae. The groups included publishers’ and writers’ associations. The rules are not legally binding, and were developed after a publisher survey, expert review and several rounds of discussion, ahead of potential legal and institutional measures. The initiative followed an April controversy over click-to-publish books and an emergency forum on the issue. Hong Young-wan, chairman of the Korean Publishers Society, said the standards were not meant to reject AI or place a “scarlet letter” on AI-generated material, but to let publishing and AI coexist while enabling readers to choose books with confidence. A July survey of 188 domestic publishers found that 76.1% had either trialled generative AI or used it in at least some work processes. About 9.6% said they used it actively, 45.7% used it for some tasks and 20.7% had adopted it on a trial basis. Use in published core content remained less widespread. Only 20.7% of surveyed publishers had issued at least one title whose main content was generated by AI, while 85.1% said an identification system for AI-generated publications was necessary or at least partly necessary. Publishers’ views on what amounts to AI authorship varied with the degree of human intervention. Some 88.3% considered fully AI-generated text AI-authored, falling to 79.8% where humans reviewed that text; 50.5% applied the label to AI-only translation and 34.6% to a manuscript partly drafted by AI and finalised by a person. The principles’ call for consent and compensation arrives against unresolved copyright questions. In a February guide, the Korean Copyright Commission said generative-AI training stores works in a manner that constitutes reproduction under the Copyright Act. Whether fair use applies must be decided case by case and cannot be settled definitively until a court gives a final judgment; absent an applicable exception, use without permission may create infringement liability. The Korea Publisher Society said it would pursue institutional improvements based on the forum discussions. Participants also called for clear grounds and an objection process before distribution is restricted over undisclosed AI use, and for clearer responsibilities and copyright protections for translators.