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 emergence of AI-generated content featuring deceased individuals raises significant ethical and legal questions regarding the use of their likeness and voice for commercial purposes, particularly in the context of promoting products and services [1][2][8]. Group 1: AI and Digital Resurrection - The AI-generated video of Zhang Tianfu, a renowned tea expert who passed away in 2017, sparked public debate about the implications of using AI to recreate deceased individuals for promotional purposes [1][2]. - Zhang Tianfu's son, Zhang Deyou, stated that the use of his father's likeness was authorized through legal means during his lifetime, aiming to promote tea culture [1][3]. - The video was produced by Zhang Tianfu Tea Development Foundation, which is a charitable organization, but the local civil affairs department clarified that the video production was a personal act and not officially sanctioned by the foundation [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Implications of Likeness Rights - Legal experts argue that the rights to a deceased person's likeness do not continue after death, and the authorization given by Zhang Tianfu may not cover AI-generated representations [4][5]. - The Civil Code stipulates that the rights related to a deceased person's name, likeness, and reputation can be protected by their immediate family members, indicating a shared interest among relatives [5][8]. - In cases of disagreement among family members regarding the use of a deceased person's likeness, the law may favor the protection of the deceased's dignity over commercial interests [5][9]. Group 3: Commercial Use and Advertising Law - The use of AI-generated likenesses of deceased individuals in advertising could potentially violate advertising laws, as it may mislead consumers into believing that the deceased endorsed the products [9][10]. - Legal experts emphasize that even if a company holds trademark rights related to a deceased individual, this does not grant them the right to digitally recreate that person's likeness for commercial purposes [9][10]. - There is a call for stricter regulations and clearer guidelines regarding the use of AI-generated content featuring deceased individuals, including the requirement to disclose that the content is AI-generated [9][10]. Group 4: Future Considerations - As AI technology becomes more prevalent, the number of disputes regarding the digital representation of deceased individuals is expected to increase [10][11]. - Legal experts suggest that lawmakers should consider establishing regulations for digital persona inheritance, allowing individuals to specify how their likeness and voice can be used after their death [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The rapid rise of Sora 2 has brought the issue of portrait rights back into focus, particularly concerning the use of deceased celebrities' images for AI-generated content [1][18]. Group 1: Reactions from Family Members - Family members of deceased celebrities, such as Robin Williams' daughter, have expressed strong discontent regarding AI-generated videos that utilize their loved ones' likenesses, stating it is disrespectful and painful [4][20]. - Zelda Williams has publicly requested that people stop sending her AI videos of her father, emphasizing that such actions are not what he would have wanted [5][6][20]. - Similar sentiments have been echoed by other family members of deceased public figures, indicating a broader concern about the use of AI in this context [24]. Group 2: Legal and Ethical Considerations - There is a growing consensus that the portrait rights of deceased celebrities should be inherited by their relatives or relevant organizations, highlighting the need for updated copyright laws in light of rapid AI advancements [8][10]. - OpenAI has acknowledged the importance of free speech in depicting historical figures but asserts that public figures and their families should ultimately control how their likenesses are used [25][26]. - The American Film Association has reported a surge in copyright infringement related to the use of members' works since the launch of Sora 2, indicating a pressing need for stronger copyright protections [27][28]. Group 3: Future Implications - The ongoing debate surrounding Sora 2's copyright issues raises questions about the future of AI-generated content and the rights of creators and their estates [29][30].

Core Viewpoint - The misuse of AI voice cloning technology to impersonate Olympic champions for selling products on social media has raised significant concerns among the public and legal experts [1][3][5]. Group 1: Incident Overview - AI technology has been used to clone the voices of Olympic champions such as Quan Hongchan, Sun Yingsha, and Wang Chuqin to promote agricultural products on short video platforms [1][3]. - A specific case involved a self-media account that published 17 videos using AI to mimic Quan Hongchan's voice, achieving over 11,000 likes on one video, with 47,000 units of the promoted product sold [1][3]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The unauthorized use of AI to impersonate Olympic champions infringes on their rights, including name rights, voice rights, and portrait rights, as outlined in the Civil Code [6]. - If the impersonation leads to defamation or the sale of counterfeit products, the infringer may face civil liabilities, including compensation for damages and public apologies [6]. Group 3: Consumer Rights - Consumers misled by AI-generated content can file complaints with the broadcaster, platform, or merchant, and if unresolved, can escalate to consumer associations or legal action [7]. - Evidence such as video recordings of the purchasing process can aid consumers in claiming refunds or compensation, especially if they receive counterfeit products [7]. Group 4: Platform Responsibilities - Short video platforms must verify the identities of broadcasters and ensure they have authorization to use AI-generated content featuring celebrities [8]. - Platforms are required to implement mechanisms for quickly identifying and removing infringing content, and failure to do so may result in shared liability with the infringer [9].