China: Using AI to Mock and Defame Others Determined as Infringing Personality Rights
Published 29 August 2025
Fei Dang
On August 22, 2025, the Beijing Internet Court (“the Court”) published a case of infringing the personality rights by using AI software to mock and defame others on its official media account.
It is reported that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the case are members of a photographing communication WeChat group. Without the consent from the former, the latter “used AI software to turn the Plaintiff’s image photo of her WeChat profile picture into an anime-style image that depicted the Plaintiff in revealing attire,” and sent it to the said WeChat group in which they are both members. Although the Plaintiff tried to stop him multiple times, the Defendant still used the said AI software to turn the Plaintiff’s image photo into an anime-style image that wore revealing clothing and had a deformed body and sent it to the Plaintiff as a private message. The Plaintiff claimed that the said infringing photos sent to the WeChat group and to her as a private message by the Defendant “could be identified as the image of the Plaintiff, and such photos contained severe sexual innuendo and were highly derogatory in nature, resulting in a significant reduction of the Plaintiff's social standing. Such actions had constituted an infringement upon the Plaintiff's image rights, reputation rights, and general personality rights.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff brought the case to the Court and requested the Defendant to apologize and compensate for the emotional distress and economic loss.
The Defendant replied that the allegedly infringing photos lacked distinctiveness or recognizability, and they “were obviously different from the image photo of the Plaintiff’s WeChat profile photo and could not direct to the Plaintiff from the perspective of the normal public.” The Plaintiff also argued that since the allegedly infringing photos were generated by the AI, he did not intentionally make any order to defame the personal image during its generation, nor did he infringe upon the relevant rights of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant had no intent to infringe.
Since there were two actions involved in the case, which were the sending of the photos in question to the WeChat group and those sent as private messages to the Plaintiff, the Court commented on them separately. Among them, regarding the photo sending to the WeChat group, the Court considered that:
Firstly, the Court recognized that the photo sending to the involved WeChat group had constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s image right. The reason for that is, without the consent of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s use of her WeChat profile image and the sending thereof to the said WeChat group upon turning it into a defaming and infringing photo with the AI software did not fall into the category of reasonable use provided by the law. Although the infringing photo in question is in anime style whereas the Plaintiff’s profile image photo is in a portrait style, the Court considered that “there was a high degree of correspondence in the natural person’s external appearances presented in the said two styles in terms of the facial structure, squatting posture, hand gestures, and styling; therefore, the members in the involved WeChat group could identify the subject corresponding to the external appearance of the figure in the allegedly infringing image as the Plaintiff through the aforementioned physical characteristics and the contextual flow of the group chat.”
Secondly, the Court recognized that the photo sending to the involved WeChat group had constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s reputation right. The Court recognized that the Plaintiff’s WeChat profile image is her identifier for online virtual identities; the Defendant’s use of the said image, in which the Plaintiff was dressed appropriately, and turning it into an image of exposed breasts with the AI software; and sending it to a multiple-person WeChat group, which resulted in discussion. The Court further considered that such exposure of the Plaintiff’s breasts had not only constituted an insult to the Plaintiff but also objectively led to others’ vulgarized comments to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Court also recognized that the Defendant, as the user of the involved AI software, actively decided to use the said tool to generate the allegedly infringing photos and published them in the involved WeChat group, and he acknowledged that such publication would result in the decreasing of the social comment on the Plaintiff yet insisted on doing so despite the Plaintiff’s dissuasion, which displayed obvious intention of the infringement.
Lastly, since the photo sending within the said WeChat group by the Defendant had been regulated under the provisions of the image right and reputation right provided in the Civil Code, the Court considered that “it should not recognize the said sending within the WeChat group as the infringement of the general personal right any more” on the ground that “only when the specific personal rights fail to include the specific personal rights and interests that should be protected, it shall apply to the general personal right for the protection.”
Regarding the private message of the allegedly infringing photo to the Plaintiff from the Defendant, the Court recognized that such action had not constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s image right and reputation right but had constituted the infringement of her general personal right instead. The reason behind that is, based on the allegedly infringing photos sent to the Plaintiff via the private message, the Court considered that such photos “were insufficient to identify the figure therein as the Plaintiff via the photos themselves, and the private message was confirmed to target the Plaintiff based on its point-to-point sending, image origins, and other factors,” and such actions merely happened in between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which did not involve “the issue of identifying the Plaintiff by the outer appearance by the public within certain extent.” In addition, since such private messages were not in the nature of public and therefore would not be acknowledged by any specific third party, there was no possibility of causing the Plaintiff’s social comment to be decreased. Accordingly, the Court recognized that the allegedly infringing photos sent to the Plaintiff via private messages by the Defendant had not constituted the infringement of the image right and reputation right.
Nevertheless, given that the Defendant “turned the images of the Plaintiff's WeChat profile into a figure with legs depicted as wooden and possessed three arms in some instances, which clearly deviate from basic human anatomy. Further, the said photos exposed the figure’s breasts”, the Court considered that such photos sent to the Plaintiff by the Defendant would inevitably cause psychological insult to the Plaintiff and therefore infringed the Plaintiff’s personal dignity and had constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s general personal right.
In a word, the Court ordered the Defendant to apologize to the Plaintiff and compensate for the emotional distress. The said judgment has come into effect now.
This case mainly involves the relevant provisions regarding the image right, the reputation right, and the general personal right under the Civil Code, which provides that “No organization or individual may infringe upon any other person's right to image by vilifying, defacing, forging by means of information technology or otherwise. Without the consent of a person entitled to image, the image of such person shall not be produced, used or made public, unless otherwise provided by law (Article 1019).” “A civil subject shall enjoy the right of reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon a person's rights to reputation by such means as insult or libel. Reputation is the social evaluation of the moral character, prestige, ability, and credit of the civil subject (Article 1024).” “Personality rights are the right to life, physical rights, health rights, name rights, name rights, image rights, reputation rights, honor rights, privacy rights, and other rights to which a civil subject is entitled. Except for the personality rights provided in the preceding paragraph, a natural person shall enjoy other personality rights and interests generated from personal freedom and personal dignity (Article 990).”
The said articles show the protection of the specific personality rights and the general personality rights under the Civil Code. Among them, apart from the image rights and the reputation rights, the specific personality rights also include the right to life, physical rights, health rights, name rights, name rights, honor rights, privacy rights, and so on, whereas the general personality rights refer to, except for the personality rights above, “the other personality rights and interests generated from personal freedom and personal dignity enjoyed by a natural person.” The difference between the two in application lies in that only when the specific personality rights fail to include the specific personality rights and interests that should be protected shall it apply with the general personality rights for protection.
In this case, the Court first distinguished the Defendant’s actions of sending the parody and defamed photos of the Plaintiff’s WeChat profile image by the AI software to a WeChat group and to the Plaintiff as private messages (i.e., the group sending and the private message), commented on them separately, and then flexibly applied the provisions of the image rights, the reputation rights, and the general personality rights for legal protection, respectively. Such a move does not only benefit to us by having a more objective and detailed analysis of the damages to the Plaintiff’s rights and interests by the Defendant’s actions and carrying out more comprehensive protection of the Plaintiff’s rights and interests, but also helps us better understand the legal applications of the specific personality rights and the general personality rights.
It is also worth noting that this case is a typical case of using AI software-generated content to conduct infringement. As the development and population of the AI technology, there is also an increase of cases that use the AI technology to infringe upon others’ intellectual property rights, personality rights, and other rights. The judgment herein reminds us once again that the AI technology is merely a tool, and anyone who uses the services provided by the AI technology should still use them properly within the scope permitted by the current laws and regulations; otherwise, they may face the adverse results of violating the laws.
It is reported that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the case are members of a photographing communication WeChat group. Without the consent from the former, the latter “used AI software to turn the Plaintiff’s image photo of her WeChat profile picture into an anime-style image that depicted the Plaintiff in revealing attire,” and sent it to the said WeChat group in which they are both members. Although the Plaintiff tried to stop him multiple times, the Defendant still used the said AI software to turn the Plaintiff’s image photo into an anime-style image that wore revealing clothing and had a deformed body and sent it to the Plaintiff as a private message. The Plaintiff claimed that the said infringing photos sent to the WeChat group and to her as a private message by the Defendant “could be identified as the image of the Plaintiff, and such photos contained severe sexual innuendo and were highly derogatory in nature, resulting in a significant reduction of the Plaintiff's social standing. Such actions had constituted an infringement upon the Plaintiff's image rights, reputation rights, and general personality rights.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff brought the case to the Court and requested the Defendant to apologize and compensate for the emotional distress and economic loss.
The Defendant replied that the allegedly infringing photos lacked distinctiveness or recognizability, and they “were obviously different from the image photo of the Plaintiff’s WeChat profile photo and could not direct to the Plaintiff from the perspective of the normal public.” The Plaintiff also argued that since the allegedly infringing photos were generated by the AI, he did not intentionally make any order to defame the personal image during its generation, nor did he infringe upon the relevant rights of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant had no intent to infringe.
Since there were two actions involved in the case, which were the sending of the photos in question to the WeChat group and those sent as private messages to the Plaintiff, the Court commented on them separately. Among them, regarding the photo sending to the WeChat group, the Court considered that:
Firstly, the Court recognized that the photo sending to the involved WeChat group had constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s image right. The reason for that is, without the consent of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s use of her WeChat profile image and the sending thereof to the said WeChat group upon turning it into a defaming and infringing photo with the AI software did not fall into the category of reasonable use provided by the law. Although the infringing photo in question is in anime style whereas the Plaintiff’s profile image photo is in a portrait style, the Court considered that “there was a high degree of correspondence in the natural person’s external appearances presented in the said two styles in terms of the facial structure, squatting posture, hand gestures, and styling; therefore, the members in the involved WeChat group could identify the subject corresponding to the external appearance of the figure in the allegedly infringing image as the Plaintiff through the aforementioned physical characteristics and the contextual flow of the group chat.”
Secondly, the Court recognized that the photo sending to the involved WeChat group had constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s reputation right. The Court recognized that the Plaintiff’s WeChat profile image is her identifier for online virtual identities; the Defendant’s use of the said image, in which the Plaintiff was dressed appropriately, and turning it into an image of exposed breasts with the AI software; and sending it to a multiple-person WeChat group, which resulted in discussion. The Court further considered that such exposure of the Plaintiff’s breasts had not only constituted an insult to the Plaintiff but also objectively led to others’ vulgarized comments to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Court also recognized that the Defendant, as the user of the involved AI software, actively decided to use the said tool to generate the allegedly infringing photos and published them in the involved WeChat group, and he acknowledged that such publication would result in the decreasing of the social comment on the Plaintiff yet insisted on doing so despite the Plaintiff’s dissuasion, which displayed obvious intention of the infringement.
Lastly, since the photo sending within the said WeChat group by the Defendant had been regulated under the provisions of the image right and reputation right provided in the Civil Code, the Court considered that “it should not recognize the said sending within the WeChat group as the infringement of the general personal right any more” on the ground that “only when the specific personal rights fail to include the specific personal rights and interests that should be protected, it shall apply to the general personal right for the protection.”
Regarding the private message of the allegedly infringing photo to the Plaintiff from the Defendant, the Court recognized that such action had not constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s image right and reputation right but had constituted the infringement of her general personal right instead. The reason behind that is, based on the allegedly infringing photos sent to the Plaintiff via the private message, the Court considered that such photos “were insufficient to identify the figure therein as the Plaintiff via the photos themselves, and the private message was confirmed to target the Plaintiff based on its point-to-point sending, image origins, and other factors,” and such actions merely happened in between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which did not involve “the issue of identifying the Plaintiff by the outer appearance by the public within certain extent.” In addition, since such private messages were not in the nature of public and therefore would not be acknowledged by any specific third party, there was no possibility of causing the Plaintiff’s social comment to be decreased. Accordingly, the Court recognized that the allegedly infringing photos sent to the Plaintiff via private messages by the Defendant had not constituted the infringement of the image right and reputation right.
Nevertheless, given that the Defendant “turned the images of the Plaintiff's WeChat profile into a figure with legs depicted as wooden and possessed three arms in some instances, which clearly deviate from basic human anatomy. Further, the said photos exposed the figure’s breasts”, the Court considered that such photos sent to the Plaintiff by the Defendant would inevitably cause psychological insult to the Plaintiff and therefore infringed the Plaintiff’s personal dignity and had constituted the infringement of the Plaintiff’s general personal right.
In a word, the Court ordered the Defendant to apologize to the Plaintiff and compensate for the emotional distress. The said judgment has come into effect now.
This case mainly involves the relevant provisions regarding the image right, the reputation right, and the general personal right under the Civil Code, which provides that “No organization or individual may infringe upon any other person's right to image by vilifying, defacing, forging by means of information technology or otherwise. Without the consent of a person entitled to image, the image of such person shall not be produced, used or made public, unless otherwise provided by law (Article 1019).” “A civil subject shall enjoy the right of reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon a person's rights to reputation by such means as insult or libel. Reputation is the social evaluation of the moral character, prestige, ability, and credit of the civil subject (Article 1024).” “Personality rights are the right to life, physical rights, health rights, name rights, name rights, image rights, reputation rights, honor rights, privacy rights, and other rights to which a civil subject is entitled. Except for the personality rights provided in the preceding paragraph, a natural person shall enjoy other personality rights and interests generated from personal freedom and personal dignity (Article 990).”
The said articles show the protection of the specific personality rights and the general personality rights under the Civil Code. Among them, apart from the image rights and the reputation rights, the specific personality rights also include the right to life, physical rights, health rights, name rights, name rights, honor rights, privacy rights, and so on, whereas the general personality rights refer to, except for the personality rights above, “the other personality rights and interests generated from personal freedom and personal dignity enjoyed by a natural person.” The difference between the two in application lies in that only when the specific personality rights fail to include the specific personality rights and interests that should be protected shall it apply with the general personality rights for protection.
In this case, the Court first distinguished the Defendant’s actions of sending the parody and defamed photos of the Plaintiff’s WeChat profile image by the AI software to a WeChat group and to the Plaintiff as private messages (i.e., the group sending and the private message), commented on them separately, and then flexibly applied the provisions of the image rights, the reputation rights, and the general personality rights for legal protection, respectively. Such a move does not only benefit to us by having a more objective and detailed analysis of the damages to the Plaintiff’s rights and interests by the Defendant’s actions and carrying out more comprehensive protection of the Plaintiff’s rights and interests, but also helps us better understand the legal applications of the specific personality rights and the general personality rights.
It is also worth noting that this case is a typical case of using AI software-generated content to conduct infringement. As the development and population of the AI technology, there is also an increase of cases that use the AI technology to infringe upon others’ intellectual property rights, personality rights, and other rights. The judgment herein reminds us once again that the AI technology is merely a tool, and anyone who uses the services provided by the AI technology should still use them properly within the scope permitted by the current laws and regulations; otherwise, they may face the adverse results of violating the laws.