Beijing Internet Court finds a short-drama maker used AI face-swapping to give a performer a well-known actress's likeness, infringing her portrait rights
On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court announced a portrait-rights judgment over an online short drama in which, it found, the production company used deep-synthesis (AI face-swap) technology to generate an image highly similar to a well-known actress, according to Beijing Daily and a Sina Finance report drawing on it. In April 2025 internet users had questioned whether the drama had face-swapped a performer into the actress, and many believed she had appeared in it. The court found that two segments of the 44-episode, roughly 90-minute drama used AI face-swapping and that the face resembled the actress closely enough for the public to identify her. The maker argued that the image was generated by AI without any prompt relating to her and could not reproduce its process in court. The court held the maker liable for portrait-rights infringement and the broadcaster liable for failing to review the content, and ordered both to post written apologies on their video accounts and pay economic damages; neither appealed. The amount is not reported in the sources read.
- AI system
- Unidentified video tool
- Occurred
- Apr 2025
- Reported
- 20 March 2026
- Event location
- China
- What the AI did
- Depicted or impersonated the person
- Reported harm
- Exploitation or Abuse
- Whose AI use
- Someone else’s AI use
- Setting
- Work · Justice
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account
- 4 claims: 4 reported. 3 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: Deep-synthesis (AI face-swap) technology used by the production company in two segments of an online short drama, as found by the court (tool not identified)
What Happened
The drama. According to a Sina Finance report drawing on Beijing Daily, in April 2025 internet users questioned whether an online short drama had used AI to face-swap a performer into a well-known actress; many users believed the actress had appeared in it, and the topic was discussed on several social platforms.
The court's findings. On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court announced the portrait-rights case. As reported, the court found that the drama ran to 44 episodes and about 90 minutes, that two segments used AI face-swap technology, and that the swapped face resembled the actress's appearance. It held that a portrait need not be identical to be identifiable, and that on comparison the face contour and features in the segments were highly similar to hers, so the public could identify her. The production company argued that the image was generated by AI without any prompt relating to the actress and that it could not have foreseen the resemblance; it submitted a description of its creative process but could not reproduce the face-swap process as the court required, and its evidence was not accepted.
The judgment. The court held that the production company had used deep-synthesis technology without permission to generate a likeness highly similar to the actress, infringing her portrait rights, and that the broadcaster had failed its duty of reasonable review. Both were ordered to post written apologies on the video accounts they operate and to pay economic damages. Neither appealed. A Jiemian column of 31 March 2026 describes the actress as the plaintiff and the face-swap as seamless.
What is not established. The sources do not name the AI tool or give the damages amount, and do not report the drama's release date or audience size.
Reported harm
The Beijing Internet Court found that a short-drama maker used AI face-swapping to generate a well-known actress's identifiable likeness without permission, infringing her portrait rights; many viewers believed she had appeared in the drama.
Outcome
ResolvedThe Beijing Internet Court ordered the production company and the broadcaster to publish written apologies on the video accounts they operate and to pay economic damages; neither appealed and the first-instance judgment took effect. The damages amount is not given in the sources read.
What remains unknown
- Which AI tool was used.
- The amount of economic damages awarded.
- When the drama was released and how many people saw it.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The Beijing Internet Court, as reported by Beijing Daily and Sina Finance, found that two segments of the short drama used AI face-swap technology and that the production company used deep-synthesis technology to generate a likeness highly similar to the actress; the company itself told the court the image was AI-generated. The generated face depicts the actress (depicted_or_impersonated) and is the infringement the court found. No tool is named.
4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported In April 2025 internet users questioned whether an online short drama had used AI face-swapping to make a performer look like a well-known actress, and many believed she had appeared in it.
Causal attribution. Report drawing on Beijing Daily.
- finance.sina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'2025年4月，有网友质疑一部网络短剧疑似把演员AI换脸成知名女演员' ... '大量网友误认为' ... '参演了该剧，相关话题在多个社交平台引发讨论。'
Reported On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court announced that the production company had used deep-synthesis technology without permission to generate a likeness highly similar to the actress, infringing her portrait rights, and that the broadcaster had failed its duty of reasonable review.
Causal attribution. The court's notice as reported; a court finding.
- finance.sina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'法院认定，短剧制作方A公司擅自使用深度合成技术生成与某知名演员高度相似的形象，侵害其肖像权；短剧播出方B公司未尽合理审查义务，同样承担相应责任。'
- news.bjd.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'法院认定，短剧制作方擅自使用深度合成技术生成与某演员高度相似的形象，侵害其肖像权；短剧播出方未尽合理审查义务，同样承担相应责任。'
Reported The court found that two segments of the 44-episode, roughly 90-minute drama used AI face-swapping; the maker argued the image was AI-generated without any prompt relating to the actress but could not reproduce the face-swap process in court.
Causal attribution. Court findings and the maker's argument as reported.
- finance.sina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'法庭上，A公司辩称，涉案形象系通过AI生成，未输入与原告相关指令，也难以预见生成形象会与原告产生关联。' ... '法院查明，涉案短剧共44集、总时长约90分钟，其中两个片段使用AI换脸技术，换脸后的演员面部与原告外貌具有一定相似度。' ... 'A公司虽提交创作过程说明，但未能按法庭要求复现换脸过程，其证据未被采信。'
Reported The court ordered the production company and the broadcaster to post written apologies on their video accounts and pay economic damages; neither appealed and the judgment took effect.
Causal attribution. The judgment as reported by two outlets relaying the court notice.
- finance.sina.com.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'最终，法院判决A公司、B公司分别在其运营的涉案视频账号向原告发布书面致歉声明并赔偿经济损失。双方均未上诉，一审判决已生效。'
- jiemian.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'要求其公开致歉并赔偿经济损失。双方均未上诉，判决现已生效。'
Sources
3 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- Sina Finance (from Beijing Daily), 20 March 2026: court rules on AI face-swap of a well-known actress in a short drama(opens in new tab)
s1 · finance.sina.com.cn · News report · Chinese · Inspected · 20 March 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source · Primary
- Beijing Daily (BJD), 20 March 2026: court finds AI face-swap short drama infringed an actress's portrait rights(opens in new tab)
s2 · news.bjd.com.cn · News report · Chinese · Inspected · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
- Jiemian (Yule Ziben Lun column), 31 March 2026: delisted company behind the AI face-swap short drama(opens in new tab)
s3 · jiemian.com · News report · Chinese · Inspected · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24 (HTTP 200); quoted passages are kept in Chinese and the English sense was rendered by the research agent (an AI), not a human translator. Sina Finance report credited to Beijing Daily and earlier reporting, 20 March 2026. Applies to s1.
Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24 (HTTP 200); quoted passages are kept in Chinese and the English sense was rendered by the research agent (an AI), not a human translator. Beijing Daily report of the court's 20 March 2026 notice; the captured page carries only the lead paragraph. Applies to s2.
Read in Chinese on 2026-10-24 (HTTP 200); quoted passages are kept in Chinese and the English sense was rendered by the research agent (an AI), not a human translator. Jiemian page of 31 March 2026 carrying a Yule Ziben Lun column on the case and the companies involved. Applies to s3.
Event countries: China. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: China.
The drama was distributed on Chinese social and video platforms and the case was decided by the Beijing Internet Court (Sina, BJD). The actress's country is not stated in the sources and is left empty.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-24: Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Beijing Internet Court found that a short-drama maker used AI face-swap (deep-synthesis) technology to generate an identifiable likeness of a well-known actress without permission and held it and the broadcaster liable for infringing her portrait rights; the maker itself said the image was AI-generated.
People described
A well-known actress whose likeness was generated in the short drama without her permission; she brought the portrait-rights suit
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
One person: the actress whose portrait rights the court found infringed. Viewers who believed she appeared are an audience and are not counted.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). Beijing Internet Court finds a short-drama maker used AI face-swapping to give a performer a well-known actress's likeness, infringing her portrait rights. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-beijing-internet-court-short-drama-maker-used-ai-face-swap-resembling-well-known-actress-portrait-infringement
BibTeX
@misc{2025_beijing_internet_court_short_drama_maker_used_ai_face_swap_resembling_well_known_actress_portrait_infringement,
title = {Beijing Internet Court finds a short-drama maker used AI face-swapping to give a performer a well-known actress's likeness, infringing her portrait rights},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-beijing-internet-court-short-drama-maker-used-ai-face-swap-resembling-well-known-actress-portrait-infringement}
} Related cases
Hangzhou: man who sold AI face-swap obscene videos, including custom swaps of private people's faces, jailed 7 years 3 months; court orders 60,000 yuan
According to Hangzhou prosecutors and courts as reported by CCTV and relayed by Xinhua in March 2024, police in Xiaoshan district opened a case in August 2022 after finding that a local man was spreading large numbers of obscene videos made with AI technology. Prosecutors said he used AI face-swap software to put faces onto obscene videos, spread them in paid social-media groups to attract customers, sold the software and tutorials, and took custom orders, swapping in the faces of public figures and of private people; one customer asked for the face of a woman he had a crush on. Victims included several well-known public figures and many unspecified private people. In a civil public-interest suit brought by prosecutors, the Hangzhou Internet Court ordered him to delete the personal information he had obtained, apologise publicly and pay 60,000 yuan for personal-information protection. In November 2023 the Xiaoshan District People's Court sentenced him to seven years and three months in prison and a 60,000-yuan fine for making and spreading obscene material for profit.
Rajasthan: a social-media influencer's video of a Ganga dip at Haridwar was manipulated with AI into an objectionable reel that went viral; she says she is mentally disturbed and cannot leave her house, and filed a cyber-crime complaint on 16 September 2026
A Rajasthan social-media influencer visited Haridwar with her family in June 2026 and on 6 June uploaded to Instagram a short video, recorded by relatives, of herself taking a dip in the Ganga at Har Ki Pauri wearing a salwar suit. About two months later she found that the video had been manipulated with AI into an objectionable version showing the same movements with her face and body portrayed 'in a shameful manner'; the fake reel went viral in the week before 20 September and drew objectionable comments and re-sharing. In a public appeal she asked whoever uploaded it to remove it, saying it was a matter of her dignity, that she was mentally very disturbed and had reached a point where she could not step out of her house. She filed a complaint with the cyber-crime police on 16 September 2026; the investigating Rajasthan Police Service officer said they were trying to identify who created and circulated the video and to have it removed, and that identifying the accused would take time. Dainik Bhaskar's English edition reported the case on 20 September in a 'Sunday Big Story' that does not name her.
Jamui, Bihar: police registered a case in September 2026 against a social media user over AI-generated videos of a minor girl who had been sexually harassed and her friend, saying the videos were fake and revealed the girl's identity
A minor girl was sexually harassed and her male friend assaulted by a group in Jamui district, Bihar, on 19 September 2026; a video of the incident spread on social media two days later and the police apprehended several of the accused. According to a Jamui police statement issued on 25 September and reported by the Press Trust of India, the police then registered a case at the cyber police station against a social media user for uploading several AI-generated videos of the girl and her friend. The police called the videos misleading and fake and said they revealed the girl's identity and could affect social harmony; the case was registered under the BNS, the POCSO Act, the Juvenile Justice Act and the IT Act. Separately, The Quint reported finding dozens of AI-generated recreations of the assault on Instagram, almost all revealing identifying details, and quoted the Jamui superintendent of police as saying that some people were making AI-generated content. No outcome of the case against the uploader has been reported.
Jersey: a TikTok account posing as a school posted AI-generated videos showing teachers in humiliating and sexualised scenes, reported to police
In February 2026 a TikTok account that used the name, badge and branding of a school in Jersey, and presented itself as "official", uploaded five videos depicting teachers at the school. The Jersey Evening Post (JEP) described the videos as AI-generated deepfakes made with a free app and reported that they showed teachers in humiliating, compromising and sexualised scenarios: in one, two male teachers dance beneath a caption insinuating sexual interest in young girls; a montage shows a teacher barking and eating from a dog bowl and teachers firing guns, while other clips ridicule the appearance of specific staff members. The JEP reported the videos were viewed nearly 20,000 times within days. Education Minister Rob Ward described the content as "deeply inappropriate", confirmed it had been reported to TikTok and the States of Jersey Police, and said his department was working with the school to support staff and students; he said it appeared to be an isolated incident. The account was removed from TikTok. No arrest, charge or identification of the account holder is reported, and no teacher is quoted.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.