In this blog post, I examined social perceptions of tattoos and safety concerns surrounding tattooing, and reflected on the challenges that must be addressed and the expected benefits during the process of legalizing tattooing.
What comes to mind when you see someone with a tattoo while walking down the street? Just 20 years ago, most people would have responded with comments like “They look like gang members” or “They look scary.” This was because, at the time, gang members often got tattoos to emphasize their sense of belonging. Today, however, there is a much stronger acceptance of tattoos as a form of self-expression. Celebrities seeking a unique image began getting tattoos to express their individuality, and as this trend sparked greater interest in tattoos, social perceptions also shifted. In line with this shift, professional tattoo artists began working openly, and it has become much more common to see people with tattoos in public than in the past.
I, too, have come to realize through encounters with tattoos on public transportation and in various media that tattoos are no longer the exclusive domain of so-called “gangsters.” Furthermore, I have friends in my circle who have gotten tattoos as a way to express their individuality, and I’ve even been encouraged to get one myself. Through these experiences, I became curious about “what the social perception of tattoos is” and “whether tattoos are actually safe.” While researching tattoos to select a topic for this essay based on this curiosity, I discovered an unexpected fact: despite the widespread practice of tattooing, tattooing performed by non-medical professionals has long been treated as an unlicensed medical practice under the Medical Service Act.
The dictionary definition of a tattoo refers to the act of creating wounds in the skin or subcutaneous tissue and injecting pigment to imprint letters, pictures, or patterns. In the past, due to this invasive nature, tattooing was interpreted as a medical procedure, and non-medical professionals who performed tattoos were sometimes punished for violating the Medical Service Act. However, despite this legal situation, a significant number of tattoo procedures have actually been performed by tattoo artists who are not medical professionals. This disconnect between the law and reality has long been a major social controversy surrounding tattooing.
This situation underwent a significant change in 2026. On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court, in a full-court ruling, determined that ordinary calligraphy, painting, and cosmetic tattoos performed by non-medical professionals did not constitute unlicensed medical practice under the former Medical Service Act, thereby reversing previous case law to the contrary. While acknowledging that tattooing is an invasive procedure, the Supreme Court found that the scope of invasiveness in standard tattooing is limited to the skin, the tools and methods used are relatively standardized, and risks such as infection or disease transmission can be managed through education and hygiene and safety management systems. It also took into account the fact that tattooing requires not only medical knowledge but also aesthetic sensibility, artistic expression, and creativity.
Along with this shift in legal precedent, legislation to regulate tattooing has already been enacted in South Korea. The “Tattoo Artist Act,” enacted on October 28, 2025, stipulates matters regarding the licensing and training of tattoo artists, the registration of tattoo parlors, and hygiene and safety management, and is scheduled to take effect on October 29, 2027. Under this law, anyone wishing to become a tattoo artist must pass a national examination and obtain a license from the Minister of Health and Welfare, and tattoo studios must also meet certain requirements to register. Therefore, the formalization of tattooing is no longer merely a policy proposal for the future; rather, it has already been institutionalized by law and has entered the stage of preparation for concrete implementation.
One of the most critical issues in the debate surrounding the regulation of tattooing is public health and safety. Since tattooing involves penetrating the skin with needles or similar instruments to inject pigment, there is a potential for side effects such as infection, allergic reactions, and skin damage. In particular, the risk of infection can increase if instruments contaminated with blood or bodily fluids are reused without proper sterilization. In the past, tattooing was sometimes performed in environments where such hygiene standards were not properly maintained, leading to cases of infection that became social issues. However, various hygiene and safety measures—such as disposable needles, sterile gloves, and disinfectants—are now widely used, and tattoo inks are also subject to separate safety regulations. Starting in June 2025, tattoo inks will be classified as “hygiene products” under the “Hygiene Products Control Act,” and regulations to prevent health and hygiene risks have been strengthened.
Therefore, rather than judging the safety of tattooing solely on whether tattoos themselves are dangerous or safe, it is necessary to approach the issue by considering the procedure environment, the practitioner’s level of training, the management of equipment, the safety of the ink, and whether an infection control system is properly in place. In fact, the Tattoo Artist Act takes these factors into account by requiring tattoo artists to undergo hygiene and safety training and health examinations, and by imposing various safety obligations, such as the disinfection and sterilization of instruments, the management of hazardous waste, and the transportation of patients to medical facilities in the event of an emergency.
Post-procedure care for tattoos is also a critical issue. Once a tattoo is applied, it is difficult to completely restore the skin to its original condition, and removal requires significant time and expense. While tattoos can be removed using laser treatments and other methods, not all tattoos can be completely removed, and in some cases, scars may remain on the skin. Therefore, before deciding to get a tattoo, it is necessary to fully understand the permanence of the tattoo, the difficulty of removal, and potential side effects. Considering that the legalization of tattoos could increase access to them, it is important not only to ensure the safety of the procedure itself but also to establish a system that allows individuals to make informed decisions.
Taking all these factors into comprehensive consideration, I have come to believe that rather than defining tattooing solely as a medical procedure, it is the right approach to recognize it as a form of artistic and aesthetic expression and to establish a separate regulatory framework tailored to it. This is because, given the steady demand for tattoos, it would be difficult to meet that demand solely by requiring all tattoo procedures to be performed by medical professionals. Furthermore, tattoos are increasingly being accepted as a cultural practice that expresses individuality and aesthetic taste. Therefore, rather than leaving the existing practice of tattooing outside the legal framework, I believe it is more effective to institutionalize it by requiring certain qualifications and hygiene and safety standards to minimize adverse effects. So, what challenges must be addressed in the process of regulating tattooing?
The most urgent issue to address is hygiene management in tattooing. This can be considered the most critical challenge in the process of institutionally regulating tattooing. While it is impossible to completely eliminate the risk of infection associated with tattooing itself, this risk can be significantly reduced by establishing appropriate training and hygiene management standards. Therefore, the hygiene conditions of tattoo studios must be managed and supervised according to specific standards, and tattoo artists must be provided with sufficient training in infection control and safety management necessary for tattooing. The Tattoo Artist Act also requires tattoo artists to undergo annual hygiene and safety training and health examinations, and it separately stipulates the hygiene and safety obligations that tattoo studios must adhere to.
Next, the issue of tattoo pricing must also be addressed as the tattoo industry becomes institutionalized. Since tattooing was previously often conducted informally, there were frequently no clear, uniform standards for pricing. Since the price of a tattoo can vary depending on factors such as size, shape, colors used, body location, design complexity, and the artist’s skill level, it is difficult to apply a uniform price to all procedures. Therefore, once the Tattoo Artist Act takes effect, rather than setting prices across the board, it will be important to provide information and ensure consumer protection so that consumers can clearly verify the price, scope of the procedure, and any additional costs before undergoing the procedure.
In the process of regulating tattooing, potential adverse effects arising from increased accessibility to tattoos must also be considered. One of the most significant characteristics of tattoos is that once applied, it is difficult to restore the skin to its original state. In particular, individuals who choose to get a tattoo out of curiosity or peer pressure without sufficient consideration are likely to regret it later. Therefore, the legalization of tattooing should not be limited to simply recognizing practitioners as legitimate; mechanisms must also be put in place to ensure that individuals receiving tattoos are provided with sufficient information regarding the permanence of tattoos, the difficulty of removal, and potential side effects before deciding whether to proceed. A particularly cautious approach is necessary when it comes to minors. The Tattoo Artist Act prohibits tattooing minors without parental consent, so the protection of minors is likely to serve as a key regulatory standard during the implementation of the system.
Furthermore, societal perceptions of tattoos themselves are an issue that must be considered during the institutionalization process. Today, tattoos are increasingly accepted as a means of expressing individuality, and many celebrities showcase their tattoos as a form of fashion or self-expression. However, it is difficult to say that societal perceptions of tattoos have completely improved across all sectors. In the past, individuals faced disadvantages in certain professions—such as police officer or military-related positions—due to their tattoos, though these regulations have been adjusted in line with changing times. The Supreme Court also recently took into account the changing social evaluation of tattoos and the evolving perceptions of those seeking them when determining the legal nature of tattooing. Therefore, moving forward, alongside the institutionalization of tattooing, it will be necessary to discuss the extent to which social disadvantages based on tattoos can be justified.
One possible solution to this issue is to establish clear regulations for the qualifications and licensing of tattoo artists. In fact, South Korea has already enacted the Tattoo Artist Act, which establishes a national certification exam and licensing system for tattoo artists. A key aspect of this system is that it evaluates not only the technical skills required for tattooing but also the ability to ensure hygiene and safety. This is because tattooing is not merely a technique of injecting pigment into the skin; it requires both the aesthetic and technical ability to accurately reproduce the desired design and the safety management skills to minimize the risk of skin damage and infection. It is for this reason that the Tattoo Artist Act’s provisions covering national examinations, licensing, hygiene education, and health screenings are particularly significant.
In addition, it is necessary to provide information on the side effects and limitations associated with tattooing. Since tattoos are difficult to remove once applied, it is crucial for clients to receive sufficient information before undergoing the procedure. In particular, the practitioner must clearly explain to the client details regarding tattoo inks, the potential for infection and adverse skin reactions, and the difficulty of tattoo removal. Furthermore, tattoo artists are required to report any information regarding serious side effects that have occurred or are likely to occur as a result of tattooing, and they are obligated to carry liability insurance or join a mutual aid association to cover damages incurred by clients. These measures are significant in that they go beyond simply permitting tattooing; they clearly define the responsibilities of both the artist and the client.
So, what are the expected benefits of regulating tattooing? First, public perception of tattooing is likely to improve compared to the past. While it cannot be said that societal views on tattoos have shifted entirely toward the positive, there is a gradual increase in instances where tattoos are accepted as a means of expressing individuality and aesthetic taste. If tattoo artists are certified through national examinations and licensing, and tattoo studios are regulated according to specific standards, public trust in the practice of tattooing itself could also increase. In particular, the fact that tattoo studios will be subject to hygiene and safety regulations within the formal system could help address the problems associated with the previously underground tattooing environment.
Furthermore, as the profession of tattoo artist gains institutional recognition, economic benefits can also be expected. Once the Tattoo Artist Act takes effect, tattoo artists will be established as an official occupational group through national examinations and licensing, and tattoo studios will be required to operate in accordance with specific standards. Consequently, industries related to tattooing—such as education, hygiene management, safety management, and related services—are likely to develop alongside it. However, the extent to which the tattoo market will expand may depend on consumer demand and the implementation process of the system; therefore, rather than making definitive predictions about specific economic effects in advance, it is necessary to monitor the changes that occur after institutionalization.
For the reasons mentioned above, I support the legalization of tattooing. Of course, the institutionalization of tattooing does not mean that all problems will be solved. Rather, following legalization, new challenges may continue to arise, such as qualification management, hygiene and safety protocols, protection of minors, consumer protection, and societal perceptions of tattoos. However, tattooing is already practiced on a significant scale in South Korean society, and treating it as if it simply does not exist creates too great a disconnect from reality. Therefore, it is necessary to move toward institutionally regulating tattooing and enhancing safety. Particularly from the perspective of science and technology, tattoos should not be viewed merely as a matter of personal taste or social perception; rather, it is necessary to examine the infections and side effects that can occur during the process of injecting pigment into the skin, the safety of tattoo inks, advancements in tattoo equipment, and the relationship between hygiene management techniques and institutional oversight.
In a society that respects individuality, I believe it is a more realistic approach to recognize tattoos as a form of artistic and aesthetic expression rather than defining them solely as a medical procedure. However, since tattooing is an invasive procedure that directly penetrates the skin, the need for safety measures must not be ignored simply because it is a form of free expression. We must minimize the risks associated with tattooing by faithfully implementing the systems established by the Tattoo Artist Act, including national examinations, licensing, hygiene training, health examinations, business registration, and the protection of minors. Rather than banning tattooing outright, I believe the way forward is to permit it only for individuals who meet specific qualifications and standards, while simultaneously establishing a scientific and systematic safety management framework.
