Core Viewpoint - The rise of AI-generated "New Year greetings" featuring celebrities has sparked discussions about the legal boundaries and potential infringements on rights associated with unauthorized use of likenesses and voices [1][5]. Group 1: AI Technology in New Year Greetings - AI technology is being utilized to create engaging short videos featuring familiar celebrities, athletes, and historical figures, which has become popular on social media platforms as the Spring Festival approaches [1][2]. - The core technology behind these videos includes deep synthesis techniques, specifically visual synthesis (deep fake) and voice synthesis, which together create realistic AI-generated content [3][4]. Group 2: Legal and Compliance Concerns - There are significant concerns regarding the compliance and safety of deep synthesis videos, particularly regarding the unauthorized use of individuals' likenesses and voices, which can infringe on personal rights [5][6]. - The Chinese Civil Code explicitly protects portrait and voice rights, and unauthorized deep synthesis can violate these rights, potentially leading to defamation or copyright infringement [6][7]. Group 3: Industry Response and Regulation - Some AI service platforms are implementing measures to prevent misuse, such as mandatory AI-generated content labels and user agreements prohibiting unauthorized use of likenesses and voices [7]. - There is a call for network platforms to take responsibility for managing the production and dissemination of such content, including establishing comprehensive management mechanisms and responding promptly to infringement notifications [7].

Group 1 - The Beijing High People's Court reported the inclusion of new types of cases such as "AI-generated voice for sales," "virtual digital person image infringement," and "illegal data scraping" in its annual report, highlighting the importance of these cases in the context of data rights protection and the development of new business models [1] - In the AI-generated voice sales case, the court ruled that using AI-generated voices of public figures without permission constitutes infringement, emphasizing the responsibility of merchants in e-commerce promotions [1] - The report indicates that a total of 9,963 cases related to data rights and artificial intelligence were adjudicated in the past year, showcasing the court's role in guiding the healthy development of new industries and models [1] Group 2 - The Beijing People's Procuratorate highlighted the prosecution of 108 cases related to data rights violations, with a focus on establishing Beijing as a global benchmark city for the digital economy [2] - A notable case involved the illegal deletion of 89TB of artificial intelligence model training data by an engineer, resulting in significant economic losses and prompting legal action under the protection of computer information systems [2] - The case reflects the evolving legal landscape surrounding artificial intelligence and data protection, with expert involvement in evidence review to ensure accurate legal classification [2]

Core Viewpoint - The importance of data security and personal information protection is emphasized, highlighting the need for a comprehensive system involving all societal stakeholders to safeguard personal information rights and promote efficient data circulation to empower the real economy [1][2]. Group 1: Data Security and Personal Information Protection - The misuse of personal information can lead to significant damage to individual rights and disrupt market order and social trust [1]. - The rise of mimetic advertising, which blends seamlessly into users' daily information streams, raises concerns about data security and personal information protection [1][2]. - There is a need for a collaborative governance mechanism to ensure data security and personal information rights are effectively protected in the digital economy [2][3]. Group 2: Regulation and Compliance - Establishing clear personal information processing rules for platforms is essential, with an emphasis on the "notice-consent" principle to protect citizens' rights [3]. - Platforms must limit personal information collection to the minimum necessary for achieving processing purposes and ensure that the processing is relevant and minimally impactful on individual rights [3]. - Platforms are urged to take on high compliance standards and not overlook personal information protection for profit, especially in the context of mimetic advertising [4]. Group 3: Technological Advancements and Risks - The application of emerging technologies like generative AI and deep synthesis in information dissemination presents diverse and hidden risks of personal information leakage and misuse [4]. - Platforms should conduct preemptive reviews and safety assessments of data usage involving personal information to ensure compliance with safety standards [4]. - It is crucial to clearly distinguish between synthetic and real information in advertising content to prevent misleading users and protect their personal information [4].

Core Viewpoint - The emergence of AI technologies, such as Sora 2, which generates videos featuring deceased celebrities, raises significant ethical and legal concerns regarding the unauthorized use of likenesses and personal data of the deceased [3][12]. Group 1: Invasion of Personality Rights - The unauthorized use of deceased individuals' likenesses for commercial purposes constitutes a clear violation of personality rights, as their images are protected by law even after death [4]. - The generated content often distorts the public image of the deceased, leading to potential claims for emotional damages from their relatives due to the infringement of dignity and respect [5]. Group 2: Data Compliance Issues - The creation of "resurrected" videos relies on the illegal use of deceased individuals' biometric data, such as facial features and voice patterns, without the consent of their heirs, violating personal information protection laws [6]. - The lack of proper oversight by technology companies regarding the legality of training data used for AI models raises concerns about shared liability for infringements [8]. Group 3: Copyright Infringement Risks - The original materials used to create the videos, such as film clips and recordings, are often still under copyright protection, and their unauthorized use constitutes a derivative work violation [8]. - If technology providers fail to implement effective copyright filtering mechanisms, they may face indirect infringement liabilities, especially if they are aware of the infringing content [9]. Group 4: Legal Outcomes and Family Rights - Legal precedents suggest that families of deceased celebrities have a high probability of winning lawsuits against companies like OpenAI for unauthorized use of likenesses and personal data [10]. - The potential defenses that OpenAI might raise, such as the "historical figure exception," lack legal grounding and may not withstand scrutiny in light of existing laws protecting personality rights [11]. Conclusion - The controversy surrounding Sora 2 highlights the clash between technological advancements and ethical/legal boundaries, emphasizing the need for updated regulations to protect the dignity of the deceased [12].