On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court reported a portrait-rights dispute that had drawn widespread online attention, arising from an AI face-swap short drama that “resembled” a famous actor.
The facts were straightforward: a production company used AI face-swap technology to splice a famous actor’s likeness onto a character’s face, leading the public to believe the actor had appeared in the drama, which became a trending topic. Another company uploaded the drama on its video account. The actor sued both the producer and the broadcaster.
Three layers of liability
Producer: technological neutrality does not mean exemption. The court found that the producer acted with intent to infringe and carried out the infringement, and should bear corresponding liability. It ordered a written apology on the account and compensation for economic loss.
Broadcaster: failing to exercise reasonable review also attracts liability. Although it did not participate in production, the court found the broadcaster had also infringed the actor’s portrait rights. In a scenario as conspicuous as a famous actor’s likeness being swapped into a drama, a platform cannot stand aside on the ground that it “did not participate in production”.
Copyright authorisation is not a defence. The court made clear that holding a copyright does not mean one may disregard others’ portrait rights, reputation and other basic personality rights. This deserves particular attention in the drama industry: even a complete copyright chain for script and materials does not cover the unauthorised use of another person’s likeness.
Compliance points for dramas and content platforms
First, AI face swap is a scenario carrying both filing and labelling duties. Services using face-swap technology must complete deep-synthesis algorithm filing, and generated content must be labelled — see our algorithm filing service and our note on the CapCut enforcement case.
Second, the authorisation chain for likeness must be separate from the copyright chain. Use of an actor’s likeness, voice and image requires separate authorisation, whose scope must match the actual use. For a fuller approach, see our IP protection service.
Third, platforms must build an executable review mechanism. A finding of “failure to exercise reasonable review” means a platform must be able to show what identification and disposal steps it took — a standing capability requirement for content platforms.
Fourth, note the separate line of criminal risk. Where face-swap technology is used to copy and distribute others’ works for profit, a copyright crime may also be at issue — see our note on the criminal conviction for pirating AI-generated short dramas.
A reminder for the industry
AI face swap has driven the cost of “resembling” close to zero. When technology makes infringement easy, judicial findings on “intent” and “review duty” become stricter. For dramas and content platforms, compliance begins not with technology but with two spreadsheets: authorisations and review.
This article is based on the Beijing Internet Court’s report of 20 March 2026 and public reporting. It is for general reference only and does not constitute legal advice.