Overseasidol.com — Concerns over the misuse of artificial intelligence technology have once again come into the spotlight after Stephen Chow’s manager, Chen Zhenyu, issued a public statement on February 10.
He questioned the actions of users on a digital platform who allegedly used AI-generated images of the iconic actor to create and spread content for profit, warning that such practices may constitute copyright and portrait rights infringement while exposing serious regulatory loopholes on the platform.
According to Chen, a large number of AI-generated videos imitating Stephen Chow’s appearance, expressions, and signature characters have been circulating widely online.
Some creators have reportedly monetized these videos through traffic revenue, advertisements, and paid visual effects provided by the platform itself.
What raised further concern was the platform’s apparent tolerance of these activities, as it continued to offer full tools and distribution channels for such content.
Stephen Chow is not the only celebrity affected. Other well-known figures, including Yue Yunpeng and the late Ng Man-tat, have also seen their likenesses replicated through AI face-swapping and synthetic videos.
In several cases, the content was criticized for distorting the artists’ images or crossing into inappropriate and low-quality creations, prompting growing public concern over violations of personality and portrait rights.
Addressing questions about whether AI-generated celebrity content constitutes infringement, renowned lawyer Zhang Qihuai offered a clear legal interpretation.
He stated that creating and distributing AI-generated videos that can be easily recognized as a specific artist, without authorization from the individual or their management, already meets the legal definition of infringement.
Under the relevant provisions of China’s Civil Code, no individual or organization is allowed to fabricate or use another person’s likeness through information technology without consent.
Labeling content as “AI-generated” does not exempt creators from liability. Furthermore, if the AI content imitates iconic roles, scenes, or movements from films or television works, it may simultaneously infringe copyright protections.
Regarding platform responsibility, Zhang emphasized that platforms cannot evade accountability when they actively provide AI tools, templates, or special effects designed specifically for generating celebrity-related content.
In such cases, platforms are considered to have facilitated infringement and may bear joint liability with the content creators.
Legal immunity for platforms only applies when technology remains truly neutral, reasonable oversight is exercised, and infringing content is promptly removed upon notification.
However, in many AI portrait infringement cases, platforms are seen as proactive participants by designing, promoting, and recommending celebrity-based AI features, thereby showing clear negligence or fault.
Looking ahead, Zhang urged artists and agencies to strengthen rights protection by registering portrait, voice, and performance-related rights early, establishing monitoring mechanisms, and clarifying authorization boundaries.
Digital platforms, he added, must also take greater responsibility by implementing authorization checks, setting up protected databases for public figures, and ensuring AI development respects legal and ethical limits.
No Response