Core Viewpoint - The rise of AI-modified videos, particularly in the context of classic films and TV shows, raises questions about copyright infringement and the preservation of original cultural narratives [3][10]. Group 1: AI Modification in Media - AI technology allows creators to modify classic film dialogues, resulting in characters speaking in ways that diverge from their original portrayals, such as speaking fluent English or discussing modern concepts [1][3]. - The production of AI-modified videos has a low barrier to entry, enabling widespread participation among creators, which has led to a significant increase in such content across various short video platforms [6][10]. Group 2: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The National Radio and Television Administration has issued warnings regarding AI-modified content, stating that it undermines traditional cultural values and may constitute copyright infringement [3][15]. - The first case of "AI voice infringement" in China concluded with a ruling that recognized the rights of voice actors, highlighting the legal complexities surrounding the use of AI in media [11][14]. - Legal experts emphasize that whether the use of modified audio is lawful depends on the specific context and purpose of the content, with a distinction made between fair use and infringement [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The case of singer G.E.M. Tang and her former agency Hummingbird Music highlights the significance of the statutory licensing system in China's copyright law, which has provided a legal avenue for artists to navigate contractual disputes and reclaim their rights [1][4]. Group 1: Statutory Licensing System - The statutory licensing system under China's copyright law is seen as a crucial tool for artists, allowing them to reproduce and distribute music without needing prior permission from the original copyright holders, provided they pay the required fees [1][5]. - This system aims to facilitate the dissemination of music works, promoting broader access while balancing the rights of copyright owners [3][5]. Group 2: Legal Precedents and Implications - A notable precedent involved singer Dao Lang and his contract with a cultural company, which ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling affirming that once a music work is publicly available, others can use it under statutory licensing without needing additional permissions [3][5]. - The ongoing legal battle between G.E.M. Tang and Hummingbird Music raises questions about the applicability of statutory licensing in Hong Kong, where different legal standards may apply compared to mainland China [7][9]. Group 3: Contractual and Copyright Issues - The complexity of copyright law is underscored by the potential for disputes over contracts signed at a young age, as G.E.M. Tang claims her original contract was signed under duress, complicating the legal landscape [7][8]. - The involvement of collective management organizations, such as the Hong Kong Composers and Authors Society (CASH), adds another layer of complexity regarding the transfer and management of copyright rights [8][9]. Group 4: Market Impact and Future Considerations - The uncertainty surrounding the legal status of G.E.M. Tang's music may lead to market hesitance among consumers and stakeholders, emphasizing the need for clear legal resolutions [9]. - The case serves as a potential precedent for other artists facing similar contractual challenges, highlighting the importance of understanding copyright laws and their implications for artistic freedom and financial security [9].