Introduction

The rise of generative AI in creative fields has sparked significant attention due to the frequent occurrence of “doppelgänger” phenomena. Characters in AI-generated short dramas often bear striking resemblances to well-known actors, mimicking their appearance, voice, and even mannerisms. Ordinary internet users are also affected, with some discovering that they have been cast as villains in AI dramas, their likenesses and outfits directly copied from images they shared online. While these AI dramas are easy to produce and quickly gain traction, they also raise ongoing discussions about copyright infringement, ethical standards, and creative integrity.

Distinction Between AI Modification and Doppelgängers

At first glance, this phenomenon differs from the previously debated topic of AI “modification,” which typically involves reworking existing film segments or plots and primarily concerns copyright compliance. In contrast, the so-called “doppelgänger” issue involves using another person’s face and voice to create content, directly incorporating them as characters in AI works, thus touching on portrait rights and personality rights. According to China’s Civil Code, these rights are legally protected and relate to personal identity, reputation, and social evaluation, meaning others cannot use them arbitrarily. Furthermore, for public figures like actors, their likeness and voice hold commercial value, and unauthorized misuse could impact their business collaborations and earnings.

The Trend of Editable Creative Material

From a creative perspective, both types of legal usage point to a common trend: whether it’s classic films or individual characteristics like faces and voices, they have become editable, callable, and reorganizable “creative materials.” The modular and combinatorial production characteristic of online literature and short video creation has been amplified in the AI environment, where even personal symbols such as likenesses and voices are included in a reusable “material library.” Consequently, the questions of “what is usable and how to use it” become more prominent and complex.

Broader Implications of Technology Abuse

It’s important to note that the impact of such technological abuse extends beyond individual rights. Highly realistic “face-swapping” and “voice imitation” content could also be used for identity theft, online fraud, and other illegal activities. When seeing is no longer believing, the public will struggle to assess the authenticity of online content, potentially leading to a crisis of trust and ethical disorder, affecting the normal order of information dissemination.

Establishing New Creative Material Usage Orders

Thus, establishing a new order for the use of “creative materials” has become a necessary step for the development of new public literature and art. In fact, actions regarding this issue have already begun. Earlier this year, the National Radio and Television Administration launched a special campaign to clean up thousands of AI “modification” videos that violated regulations and dealt with related accounts. Recently, the Actors Committee of the China Broadcasting and Television Social Organizations issued a stern statement addressing the infringement chaos of AI “face-swapping” and “voice imitation,” clarifying the legal boundaries of such behaviors and demanding platforms to strengthen review and authorization mechanisms. The construction of relevant orders is gradually moving towards institutionalization and standardization.

Challenges in Governance

However, addressing these issues is not straightforward. AI not only changes creative methods but also reconstructs the underlying logic of artistic production, necessitating a balance between creative vitality and rights protection.

On one hand, from a future perspective, using others’ images and voices for AI recreation is not merely “theft” when done under legitimate authorization; it represents a new creative approach. The appearance, voice, and even expressive styles of individuals can be transformed into reusable creative resources. Compared to traditional models that rely on actors to perform in specific times and spaces, AI creation allows for more valuable personality elements to be flexibly combined across different works, thus overcoming temporal and spatial limitations, enhancing creative efficiency, and expanding artistic expression possibilities. Therefore, solving this dilemma lies not in simple prohibition or indulgence but in regulating the boundaries of usage.

On the other hand, balancing and accommodating interests is challenging. First, determining infringement is more complex. In reality, different individuals may naturally resemble each other, and one cannot simply claim infringement based on “similarity.” However, if generated content resembles a specific person to a degree that the public can clearly associate it with that individual, it may constitute infringement. Drawing the line between “unintentional similarity” and “malicious infringement” is a significant challenge in practical judgment. Secondly, the responsibility structure is more dispersed. In the process of AI-generated content, multiple parties are involved, from data collection and model training to content generation and platform dissemination, making responsibility attribution no longer correspond to a single entity, further complicating governance. For instance, some producers may use “AI generation” as a pretext to mask their intent to exploit others’ images for traffic.

The Gap Between Compliance Costs and AI Efficiency

Moreover, the gap between compliance costs for lawful use and the efficiency of AI creation is widening. AI has made it easy to “use others’ appearances or voices to create new content,” but creators often face real obstacles like information asymmetry and complex processes when seeking legal authorization. When compliance costs significantly exceed production costs, creators are often forced to choose between “borderline infringement” and “abandoning creativity.”

Conclusion

Therefore, the key issue is to make “compliant use” feasible: this requires more convenient authorization mechanisms that allow creators to more easily use materials legally, as well as leveraging AI to enhance matching efficiency, transitioning from traditional one-to-one authorization models to more intensive and intelligent authorization mechanisms, stimulating more diverse expressions and creativity. Additionally, there is a need to strengthen ethical awareness in creation, encouraging creators to consciously respect others’ images and reputations, and even when authorized, to avoid distorting or damaging others’ images, achieving a unity of “usable” and “well-used.”

For new public literature and art, the real challenge lies not in the technology itself but in whether clear rules and consensus can be formed in new creative practices, achieving both protection of creativity and respect for individuals. Only in a regulated and orderly environment can the empowerment of AI in artistic production transform into strong and lasting creative vitality.