Core Viewpoint - The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as AI photo editing and deepfake tools, has raised significant legal concerns regarding the protection of personal rights, particularly in cases of unauthorized use of individuals' images and the blurring of lines between reality and fiction [1][8]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves a dispute between two members of a photography group, where the defendant used AI to create and share altered images of the plaintiff without consent, leading to claims of infringement on the plaintiff's portrait rights, reputation, and general personality rights [2][3]. - The court's ruling provided clear guidance on the legal boundaries of portrait rights, reputation rights, and the application of general personality rights in the context of AI-generated content [8][9]. Group 2: Legal Findings - The court determined that the defendant's group sharing of altered images constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's portrait and reputation rights, as the images were recognizable and had a degrading effect on the plaintiff's social standing [5][6][14]. - The private messaging behavior of the defendant did not infringe on the plaintiff's portrait or reputation rights but was found to violate general personality rights due to the humiliating nature of the images sent [7][12]. Group 3: Judicial Implications - The case highlights the need for clear standards regarding the "recognizability" of AI-generated images in legal contexts, emphasizing that even altered images can be deemed recognizable if they can be identified by the audience [9]. - The court's recognition of the sensitive nature of female representation in media and its implications for reputation rights reflects a broader commitment to protecting individual dignity and rights in the face of technological advancements [10][15]. - The application of general personality rights in this case serves as a precedent for future cases involving AI-generated content, ensuring comprehensive protection of individual rights beyond specific categories [11][13].

Core Viewpoint - The Chengdu Railway Transport Intermediate Court upheld the original ruling in the case of a personality rights dispute between appellant He and respondents Luo and Zeng, as well as the Chengdu Metro Operations Company, dismissing the appeal [1] Group 1: Court Proceedings - The second-instance hearing took place on September 8, 2025, where new evidence was presented by both parties regarding the incident that occurred on June 11, 2023, involving a dispute over the reflective surface of He’s shoes [2][3] - The court found that the facts established in the second instance were largely consistent with those in the first instance, confirming that the dispute arose from Luo and Zeng questioning whether He’s shoes contained a camera [2][3] Group 2: Apologies and Reactions - Luo and Zeng issued three apologies to He, including an in-person apology during the incident, a public apology published in the media, and a courtroom apology during the second-instance hearing [5][6] - Despite the apologies, He did not accept them, citing a lack of sincerity in the initial apologies [5] Group 3: Legal Findings - The court determined that Luo and Zeng's actions did not constitute defamation or malicious intent, as their questioning was based on observable phenomena and did not involve derogatory language [8][9] - The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Luo and Zeng's actions resulted in a reduction of He’s social standing, thus ruling that there was no infringement of He’s personality rights [10]