Using old systems to defeat new phenomena? A guide for ordinary people on how to use legal tools against AIGC infringement
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Using old systems to defeat new phenomena? A guide for ordinary people on how to use legal tools against AIGC infringement
AIGC Rights Protection Strategies
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Xiao Sa Team
Since ChatGPT ignited the AIGC sector, AI technology has rapidly become a highly efficient, user-friendly, and low-barrier tool widely adopted for daily use, artistic creation, and entertainment. Moreover, AI has demonstrated surprising potential in certain niche areas—most notably, the recent surge in discussions around AIGC-generated pornography.
American pop superstar Taylor Swift was not the first victim of AIGC-related pornographic abuse, but her case is undoubtedly the most high-profile and impactful incident to date. According to reports by The Hill, AI-generated explicit images of Taylor Swift were maliciously uploaded onto a social media platform and quickly spread across the internet. The situation became so severe that the platform temporarily blocked searches related to "Taylor Swift" (the restriction has since been lifted).
From the AI-generated voice covers mimicking singer Yanzi Sun to the fake images of Taylor Swift, we can clearly see both the convenience offered by AIGC tools and the serious threats unregulated technologies pose to individuals' legal rights. Given the current lack of comprehensive AIGC regulations, the Xiao Sa team draws on recent experiences handling人格权 infringement injunction cases to discuss how ordinary individuals can use legal tools to protect themselves against AI-driven侵害.
What Are Personality Rights and Personality Rights Infringement Injunctions?
In recent years, a popular saying goes: "Only magic can defeat magic." Objectively speaking, there is no magic in law, nor should there be—but this doesn't prevent us from using the latest legal mechanisms to combat AI-powered threats.
The Civil Code officially took effect on January 1, 2021, introducing the personality rights infringement injunction as a significant institutional innovation. As stipulated in Article 997 of the Civil Code: "Where a civil subject has evidence proving that another party is currently engaging in or about to engage in unlawful acts infringing upon their personality rights, and failure to stop such acts promptly would result in irreparable harm to their legitimate interests, they have the right to apply依法 to the people's court for measures ordering the cessation of such conduct."
The concept of an injunction is familiar to many. It is a widely recognized legal mechanism across jurisdictions, referring to a mandatory court order issued either before or during litigation, at the applicant’s request, prohibiting or restricting the respondent from carrying out specific actions when there is ongoing, imminent, or threatened侵权. The personality rights injunction system established under Article 997 of China’s Civil Code aims to provide more comprehensive protection for personality rights. By creating an efficient and expedited procedural mechanism for asserting personality rights claims, it enables prompt intervention against侵害, offering effective relief and preventing irreversible damage.
So what exactly are personality rights? In academic terms, personality rights refer to inherent civil rights exclusively enjoyed by civil subjects, with personal interests as their object, essential for maintaining the independence of one’s personality. More通俗ly, they represent a legally protected bundle of various personal interests and elements constituting our individual identity. The Civil Code actually recognizes two categories of personality rights: specific personality rights and general (or residual) personality rights.
Specific personality rights include natural persons’ rights to life, bodily integrity, health, name, portrait, reputation, honor, privacy, and marriage autonomy. For legal entities and unincorporated organizations, these include rights to names, reputation, and honors.
Of course, the components of personality are numerous and go beyond just these listed types. Any right related to personal independence, freedom, or dignity may fall within the scope of personality rights. Therefore, the Civil Code collectively protects such rights under the umbrella term “general personality rights.”
Why Can Personality Rights Injunctions Counter AIGC Infringement?
With the definition of personality rights clarified, the scope of protection provided by personality rights injunctions becomes evident. But why do we say this injunction is a powerful tool for ordinary people to fight back against AIGC侵权? There are several key reasons:
(1) General personality rights are broadly and abstractly defined, making them adaptable to the ever-evolving methods of AIGC侵权
How many forms can AIGC侵权 take? The Xiao Sa team believes that as long as imagination allows, the number of Hamlets equals the number of AIGC侵权 methods. It is well known that laws tend to lag behind societal and technological developments, often failing to adjust regulations promptly. This results in emerging legal issues lacking clear precedents or statutory bases, leaving judicial bodies unable to offer timely and effective remedies.
To some extent, the introduction of the personality rights infringement injunction helps mitigate this legal lag. This relates to the Civil Code’s protection of abstract personality interests. As previously mentioned, while the Code explicitly safeguards defined specific personality rights, it also protects other rights tied to personal independence, freedom, and dignity—even if they haven’t yet been codified into specific provisions. When AIGC侵犯s clearly defined rights like portrait or reputation, the legal basis is straightforward. However, for newer, less-defined rights—such as voice—the general personality rights framework can step in. For instance, in cases where celebrities like Yanzi Sun had their voices cloned by AI to sing songs, voice rights aren’t enumerated as a standalone specific right, but remain closely linked to personal identity and thus should be protected under the general personality rights doctrine.
Take the case adjudicated on September 25 by the Chengdu Internet Court: actor Lei Sun sued Chengdu Sleep God Fly Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sleep God Fly Technology Co., Ltd. for人格权 infringement. The defendants used Lei Sun’s voice ("buying watermelon" meme) without permission to develop a mini-game titled “Watermelon Vendor vs. Watermelon Buyer.” Lei Sun argued that the companies violated his rights in two ways: (1) unauthorized commercial use of his voice; and (2) portraying his persona as a violent, troublemaking figure, thereby disrespecting his human dignity.
The first-instance court held that although the Civil Code does not recognize voice rights as an independent specific personality right, voice interests fall under the scope of general personality rights as defined in Article 990. Since a person’s voice serves an identifying function, its unauthorized use—unless falling under the reasonable-use exceptions outlined in Article 999—constitutes an infringement. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Lei Sun. This landmark judgment marks the first successful claim based on general personality rights in China and sets a precedent of great significance. Thus, the broad and abstract nature of general personality rights makes them highly adaptable to the constantly evolving tactics of AIGC侵权.
(2) The injunction process is short and fast, enabling timely response to AIGC侵权
As noted earlier, the personality rights infringement injunction applies specifically to urgent situations where personality rights face imminent danger—one of its core conditions being time sensitivity. Based on the Xiao Sa team’s practical experience, the speed and efficiency of this procedure make it particularly suitable for halting AIGC侵权 swiftly. In other words, had the Taylor Swift incident occurred in China, a personality rights injunction could have acted promptly to prevent further扩散 of harm.
Article 997 of the Civil Code uses the term “application” rather than “lawsuit,” and the Supreme People’s Court has categorized such cases under non-litigious procedures in its Provisions on案由 for civil cases. This significantly accelerates the issuance of injunctions. While there is currently no明确规定 on the exact timeframe for issuing a personality rights injunction, courts typically follow general rules for non-litigious applications under Article 104(2) of the Civil Procedure Law: “After accepting an application, the people’s court must issue a ruling within forty-eight hours.” Alternatively, courts may参照 the timeline set forth in Article 28 of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law regarding personal safety protection orders: “The people’s court shall issue a personal safety protection order or reject the application within seventy-two hours after accepting the application; in紧急 situations, a decision shall be made within twenty-four hours.” These benchmarks highlight the superior efficiency of personality rights injunctions compared to conventional litigation.
Final Thoughts
Of course, as a relatively new institution, the personality rights infringement injunction—while shifting the protective focus forward to preventive stages and offering a novel approach to comprehensive personality rights protection—still faces challenges in practice due to limited precedents and overly general provisions. For example, when the Xiao Sa team handles人格权 cases, judges often hesitate to apply the injunction, citing two common reasons: (1) the existence of alternative procedures, making the injunction unnecessary; or (2) the absence of prior similar cases, leading judges to avoid being the “first crab to cross the river.”
In such circumstances, the Xiao Sa team recommends promptly engaging professional legal counsel. Especially in AIGC侵权 cases, it is crucial to clearly and concisely explain both the technical principles of AIGC and the nature of the侵权, while precisely identifying the violated rights and presenting compelling arguments that leave judges with no choice but to issue an injunction. Only then can we effectively halt AIGC侵权 in its tracks.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
