 |
| AI Short Dramas Using Xiao Zhan’s Face Spark Legal Row in China. (Credits: Sohu) |
Chinese actor Xiao Zhan has found himself at the centre of a fresh online controversy after several AI-generated short dramas appeared on the internet featuring characters with a striking resemblance to the star. The clips, circulating widely from 10 March, sparked immediate debate over the use of artificial intelligence to recreate a celebrity’s face without permission, raising renewed questions about digital identity and legal accountability in China’s rapidly expanding AI content industry.
The short-form series reportedly used artificial intelligence tools to generate a male lead whose facial features closely mirror those of Xiao Zhan, one of China’s most recognisable television and film actors. The productions quickly gained attention online, not only because of the likeness but also due to suspicions that the technology had been deployed without the actor’s consent.
The issue intensified after viewers began sharing clips across social media platforms, pointing out the similarities between the AI-generated character and the real-life star.
Within days, discussions spread across Chinese entertainment forums and video sites, prompting scrutiny from both fans and legal observers.
In response to the growing backlash, some creators behind the short dramas attempted to adjust their content. Several scenes were edited so the character’s face appeared blurred or partially censored. Others altered the character’s name to modified versions such as “Xiao Zhan” written with different Chinese characters, an apparent attempt to distance the productions from the actor’s real identity.
Despite these changes, the content has not fully disappeared from the internet.
Reports suggest that while some titles have been removed from search listings or taken down from platforms, direct links to certain episodes remain accessible. One production reportedly removed its AI-generated lead entirely, while another replaced the character’s face but continues to stream.
Legal experts say the controversy highlights the growing challenges surrounding AI-generated media.
Li Zhenwu, director and lawyer at Shanghai Lizhen Law Firm, explained that if an AI-generated image, voice, or video can still be recognised by the public as representing a real person, the act may constitute an infringement of portrait rights under Chinese law.
 |
According to Li, the issue becomes even more serious when such content is used commercially. If AI-generated images or voices resembling a public figure are used to generate revenue without authorisation, the case could potentially fall under criminal fraud statutes.
Under Article 266 of China’s Criminal Law, individuals who obtain significant financial gain through deceptive means may face heavy penalties. In serious cases, the sentence can exceed ten years in prison, alongside fines or asset confiscation.
The controversy has also renewed debate about the role of digital platforms that host such content.
As AI-generated media spreads across video apps and streaming platforms, questions are being raised over how much responsibility those platforms should bear when potentially infringing material gains traction online.
For the Chinese entertainment industry, the episode reflects a broader turning point. Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly embedded in film and television production, offering new creative tools while simultaneously testing the limits of existing legal frameworks.
Fans and netizens appear divided. Some viewers argue that AI creativity should be allowed to experiment freely, especially in short-form web dramas that often operate on minimal budgets. Others believe the line is clear: replicating a recognisable celebrity face without permission crosses into misuse of identity.
Supporters of Xiao Zhan have been particularly vocal, calling for stricter oversight on AI-generated content involving public figures. Several online discussions emphasised that the actor’s reputation and image should not be used as a shortcut to attract viewers.
Meanwhile, legal commentators say this case may serve as an early warning for the entertainment sector. As AI tools become more accessible, disputes involving digital likeness, voice replication, and identity simulation are expected to increase.
For audiences following the debate, the incident raises a simple but pressing question: where should the line be drawn between technological creativity and personal rights? Share your thoughts—should AI-generated actors be allowed if they resemble real celebrities, or should the law draw a stricter boundary?