Recently, the lawsuit filed by actress Zhao Liying against the operator of Hongguo Short Drama over portrait rights infringement officially went to trial, quickly trending on social media and drawing widespread attention.
The case directly targets the rampant abuses in the short drama industry involving AI face-swapping and face-merging theft, and is regarded as a tough legal move by a celebrity against AI portrait infringement, sounding an alarm for the technological compliance development of the short video and short drama industries.
According to the court's public hearing announcement, the case was heard on November 10, 2026, at the Mentougou District People's Court in Beijing via cloud courtroom proceedings.
The plaintiff is the well-known actress Zhao Liying, and there are three defendants: Beijing Bimo Liuxiang Technology Co., Ltd., the operating entity of Hongguo Short Drama; its wholly-owned controlling shareholder Beijing Douyin Information Service Co., Ltd.; and a related natural person surnamed Shi.
It is reported that the core issue of this infringement dispute is that the Hongguo Short Drama platform, without any authorization or permission from Zhao Liying herself, used AI face-swapping and AI face-merging technology to extract and synthesize her facial portrait materials, mass-producing commercial short drama content and using them as work covers and promotional material, leveraging the star's public influence to gain traffic and achieve commercial monetization.
Such unauthorized commercial use of AI-generated portraits severely infringes on the artist's portrait rights and also constitutes suspected unfair commercial solicitation.
In response to the platform's infringement, Zhao Liying's side formally filed multiple litigation requests, demanding that the defendants immediately remove all infringing short drama works, delete related portrait materials, publicly apologize and eliminate negative impact, and compensate for economic losses and reasonable legal expenses totaling 810,000 yuan, firmly defending her legitimate rights and interests through legal means.
According to Qichacha and Tianyancha business registration information, Beijing Bimo Liuxiang Technology Co., Ltd. was established in 2021, primarily engaged in film and television drama production, short drama production, and internet audiovisual services. Its core product is the widely known Hongguo Short Drama APP, which is wholly controlled by Douyin.
Notably, this is not the first time the platform has been involved in portrait infringement controversies. In recent years, Hongguo Short Drama has been repeatedly exposed for using the portraits of multiple well-known artists without authorization to produce AI short dramas. Artists such as Xiao Zhan and Cheng Yi have also encountered similar "AI face-match" infringement issues, with industry disputes occurring frequently.
In response to past infringement allegations, Hongguo Short Drama customer service once explained that "AI short dramas are an emerging type, and platform review processes are imperfect." However, this explanation has not been accepted by the public. Public opinion generally holds that technological innovation cannot supersede the legal bottom line, and that platform review oversights cannot serve as an excuse for wantonly misappropriating others' portraits for illegal profit, exposing deep-seated problems of incomplete content review mechanisms and a lack of copyright compliance awareness.
For a long time, the abuse of AI face-swapping and face-merging has been a persistent problem in the online short drama industry. Some platforms rely on artificial intelligence technology to produce celebrity face-imitation short dramas at low cost in bulk, misappropriating the portrait traffic of public figures at zero cost, severely disrupting the entertainment market order, harming the legitimate rights and interests of artists, and easily misleading the public and breeding harmful content.
According to reports, portraits have the characteristics of individuality and identifiability and should point to a specific individual image that distinguishes a natural person from other natural persons. Even if the image used in an AI short drama is not exactly identical to the person and is a synthesized face, it is not necessarily excluded from portrait rights protection. The key judgment is not "whether it is exactly identical" but the identifiability of the portrait.
Lawyer You Yunting pointed out that "if it can be recognized by the general public or a specific industry group, it should be determined that the natural person's portrait has been used. At this point, the judgment is based on facial contours and feature characteristics—whether the general public perceives it as particularly resembling the person. If the public's answer is 'yes,' then the court will most likely rule infringement."
As for how "public perception" can be substantiated at the evidentiary level, the lawyer stated: "An appraisal institution can be engaged for identification. If it is indeed particularly similar, then the court may not even need an appraisal and can directly make a determination."
With the continuous improvement of AI-related laws and regulations, the Supreme People's Court has made clear that where AI technology is used to impersonate celebrities for commercial profit, constituting infringement or fraud, rights holders may pursue legal liability and claim punitive damages in accordance with the law.
Zhao Liying's zero-tolerance and resolute legal action this time, rather than settling privately or handling it quietly, demonstrates the artist's firm stance against industry misconduct.
Industry insiders say the case of Zhao Liying suing Hongguo Short Drama carries strong benchmark significance for the industry. This case is not only a battle to defend personal rights but also a compliance overhaul for the entire AI short drama industry. In the future, the application of AI technology must strictly adhere to legal red lines, and no platform may use the name of technological innovation to engage in infringement for profit.
Currently, the court hearing has been completed smoothly, and the first-instance verdict has not yet been announced.
Comments