广州一餐厅鼎泰厨·泰国料理（万菱汇店）近日直播店内顾客吃饭，受到外界质疑。 截图。来源：网络 餐厅直播 2026年1月8日上午，该餐厅工作人员回复智通财经称，目前，顾客吃饭的直播已经取消了，"没有了"。 至于为何要直播顾客吃饭，该工作人员称"不清楚"。 相关直播截图显示，上述餐厅的直播镜头对准了正在饭桌上吃饭的顾客。智通财经查询该餐厅的抖音号 发现，账号的直播历史显示，2025年12月27日至2026年1月6日，该餐厅陆续有直播，其直播时间均为中 午、下午的饭点时间。 陈亮表示，餐厅私自直播顾客吃饭的行为，不仅侵犯了顾客的肖像权、隐私权，顾客可以向其民事索 赔，如果行为情节严重，拒不改正的，还可能会被予以行政处罚。 智通财经记者 陈绪厚 值得一提的是，近年来，全国多地的餐厅均出现直播顾客吃饭的行为，引发争议。 据上游新闻2024年8月报道，有网友在社交平台发帖爆料称其在陕西西安一家餐厅用餐时，店方未经消 费者同意进行直播导致自己入镜。记者致电涉事商家，其负责人表示，目前已收到市场监管局通知休业 整改，大约一周后恢复营业。当地市场监管部门也表示，已经派员前往该店责令整改。 据红星新闻2025年4月报道，有网友发 ...

转自：扬子晚报 1月7日，记者致电该门店，工作人员表示："目前没有直播，已经整改了。"但未回答为何会直播顾客用 餐的问题。记者随后联系该品牌公关负责人，对于直播是否为门店自主行为，她表示，"内部还在调查 当中"。 饭店在未提前告知的情况下，直播店内顾客用餐，是否涉嫌侵犯顾客个人隐私？ 对此，广东格林律师事务所律师陈铭希表示，根据《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称《民法典》） 第一千零一十九条规定，未经肖像权人同意，不得制作、使用、公开肖像权人的肖像，法律另有规定的 除外。此外，《民法典》第一千零三十二条还规定，隐私是自然人的私人生活安宁和不愿为他人知晓的 私密空间、私密活动、私密信息。任何组织或者个人不得以刺探、侵扰、泄露、公开等方式侵害他人的 隐私权。 近日，一网友发帖表示，广州一网红餐厅鼎泰厨·泰国料理（万菱汇店）直播店内顾客用餐，并质疑其 侵犯顾客的个人隐私，"谁吃饭的时候想被直播围观？"平台记录显示，涉事门店在2025年12月27日至 2026年1月6日期间，每天有1-2场店内直播。 此事引发广泛关注，有网友表示自己曾去该饭店吃饭但并没有工作人员告知正在直播。也有网友调侃： 为什么不直播后厨？ 据公开 ...

来源：北京青年报 身处公共场所，突然感觉手机镜头似乎对准了自己，被冒犯的感觉顿时令人焦虑不安。情急之下，能否 直接要求甚至强行查看对方手机？该怎么做才能合理合法地维护自身正当权益呢？ 情形一 被偷拍了，是否属于侵犯人格权？ 属于。法律保护公民的肖像权和隐私权。任何人未经同意不得制作、使用、公开肖像，不得侵犯他人私 密空间、活动、信息等。该项权利属于《中华人民共和国民法典》中基本人格权范畴。 情形二 可否直接要求或强行查看对方手机？ 不行。手机是高度私密的个人物品，存储着大量的个人信息、通讯记录、照片视频等隐私数据。任何公 民都无权强制查看他人手机内容。强行查看、抢夺、翻查他人手机的行为可能侵犯他人隐私权。此外， 手机是个人财产，强行夺取或控制的行为侵犯他人财产所有权。若因争执行为发生肢体冲突可能违反治 安管理处罚法，严重者甚至触犯刑法中有关侮辱、诽谤、寻衅滋事、故意毁坏财物等法律规定。 情形三 为防止对方逃走销毁证据能否强行留住对方再报警？ 第一时间拨打110，并向接警员清晰说明："这里有人正在偷拍(或不雅拍摄)，涉事人尚未离开，位置在 XX，其特征是XX，急需民警立即到场处置以防其逃离销毁证据"。提供精准信 ...

被偷拍了，是否属于侵犯人格权？ IT之家附热点问题解答如下： IT之家 11 月 30 日消息，偷拍、被误会偷拍近日已成为讨论热点，央视新闻今日发文科普了怀疑自己被偷拍后合理合法地维护自身正当权益的方式，并详细 解答了能否直接要求或强行查看对方手机、能否强行留住对方等系列问题。 属于。法律保护公民的肖像权和隐私权。该项权利属于民法典中基本人格权范畴。 民法典规定，任何组织或者个人不得以丑化、污损，或者利用信息技术手段伪造等方式侵害他人的肖像 权。未经肖像权人同意，不得制作、使用、公开肖像权人的肖像，但是法律另有规定的除外。未经肖像 权人同意，肖像作品权利人不得以发表、复制、发行、出租、展览等方式使用或者公开肖像权人的肖 像。 手机是高度私密的个人物品，存储着大量的个人信息、通讯记录、照片视频等隐私数据。任何公民都无权强制查看他人手机内容。强行查看、抢 夺、翻查他人手机的行为可能侵犯他人隐私权。 此外，手机是个人财产，强行夺取或控制的行为侵犯他人财产所有权；若因争执行为发生肢体冲突可能违反治安管理处罚法，严重者甚至触犯刑 法中有关侮辱、诽谤、寻衅滋事、故意毁坏财物等法律规定。 按照我国刑法规定，以暴力或者其他方 ...

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].