Core Viewpoint - The rise of AI-modified videos, which alter classic film and television dialogues, poses significant challenges to traditional cultural values and intellectual property rights, as highlighted by the National Radio and Television Administration's concerns about these practices [1][6]. Group 1: AI Modification and Its Popularity - AI technology allows creators to modify classic film dialogues seamlessly, resulting in videos that can achieve millions of views and likes on short video platforms [2][3]. - The low technical barrier for creating AI-modified content has led to an explosion in the number of such videos, as users can easily generate convincing voiceovers and character animations [4][5]. Group 2: Legal and Ethical Implications - The legal boundaries of using AI-modified content remain unclear, with potential infringement risks depending on the context of use, such as whether the modification serves a critical or satirical purpose [6][7]. - The first case of AI voice infringement in China resulted in a ruling that recognized the original voice actor's rights, emphasizing the need for legal frameworks to protect against unauthorized use of voice and likeness [5][6]. Group 3: Industry Perspectives - Industry experts express concerns that AI-modified content undermines the original works' integrity and cultural significance, raising ethical questions about the motivations behind such creations [6][7]. - The proliferation of AI tools for content creation has led to a lack of awareness regarding copyright issues, with many creators operating under the assumption that they will not face legal repercussions [7].

通过这些案例，朱阁总结了AI司法实践中的三大原则：第一，依据现行法律裁判，给市场主体以稳定 预期。第二，找到人工智能背后的人，"让他享有权利，承担责任"。第三，通过个案认定形成规则，在 技术高度变革中平衡创新与利益保护。 在人工智能著作权领域，朱阁提到了那起备受关注的全国首例AI文生图版权侵权案件。 "以裁判树规则，以规则促治理，以治理助发展。"她说道。 据悉，原告李某使用AI工具Stable Diffusion，依据自定义提示词生成图片；被告楼某未经许可使用案涉 图片并删除署名，原告遂向北京互联网法院起诉主张著作权侵权。法院认为，尽管图像由人利用AI生 成，AI本身不能成为著作权主体；原告在提示词设计、构图选择及调整中进行了独创性智力投入，依 法享有著作权，据此判决被告侵犯署名权和信息网络传播权。 采写：南都记者黄莉玲 樊文扬 发自乌镇 该案中，法院需判断作品是否具有独创性及权利归属。朱阁解释："符合作品定义那就是作品，权利一 般归属于人工智能的使用者。"她强调，若AI生成内容体现了使用者的智力创作投入，应认定为独创作 品，并可依《著作权法》确认归属；同时指出，知识产权属私权，在法律允许范围内可通过约定确定 ...

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the original singer of the song "Year Ring" has sparked significant public interest, highlighting the complexities of copyright and performance rights in the music industry [3][5][12]. Group 1: Event Overview - Influencer @Wangzai Xiao Qiao announced a masked concert with ticket prices ranging from 268 to 968 yuan, which led to public scrutiny due to her lack of original songs and high ticket prices [3]. - The situation escalated when past comments by @Wangzai Xiao Qiao regarding the song "Year Ring" resurfaced, leading to a heated debate about the song's original artist [5][6]. Group 2: Legal Perspectives - Legal experts clarified that "original singer" is not a legal term; instead, it refers to the performer who first publicly released a recording, which in this case is Zhang Bichen [7][9]. - The dispute centers on Zhang Bichen claiming to be the sole original singer based on the timing of her release, while Wang Sulong asserts that "Year Ring" has dual original singers due to his authorship rights [11][12]. Group 3: Copyright Implications - The rights of the original singer are limited to performance rights and do not include the broader copyright ownership held by the songwriter [9][12]. - The concept of "dual original singers" is theoretically possible if the contracts allow for multiple versions, but this requires clear contractual agreements [14][16]. Group 4: Industry Insights - The incident reflects a broader issue in the music industry regarding the recognition of original artists versus copyright holders, emphasizing the need for clarity in contracts and communication among involved parties [19][22]. - The discussion also highlights the emotional and commercial implications of such disputes, as artists navigate their identities and rights within the industry [22].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding NetEase Cloud Music's handling of the original artist label for songs by Zhang Bicheng and Wang Sulong, highlighting issues of copyright and platform responsibility [2][3][4]. Group 1: Incident Overview - NetEase Cloud Music initially removed the original artist label for three songs by Zhang Bicheng, including "Year Ring," while maintaining the label for Wang Sulong's version [2][3]. - The platform later restored the original artist labels after user complaints and clarified that the removal was due to a system display issue [3][4]. - Legal experts noted that the original artist label lacks a clear definition in Chinese copyright law, and the rights depend on the contractual agreements between the artists and the platform [4][7]. Group 2: Artist Statements and Reactions - Zhang Bicheng's studio stated that she is the only original artist for "Year Ring," which was first released in June 2015, while Wang Sulong's version followed shortly after [4][6]. - Wang Sulong's team announced the decision to retract the song's authorization due to the ongoing dispute over the original artist designation [4][6]. Group 3: Financial Context - NetEase Cloud Music is facing increasing financial pressure, with a reported revenue decline of 8.4% year-on-year in Q1 2025, totaling 1.858 billion yuan, and a gross profit decrease of 11% [14]. - In contrast, Tencent Music reported a revenue increase of 8.7% year-on-year, highlighting the competitive challenges faced by NetEase Cloud Music [14].