The Supreme People's Court held a press conference today and officially released the "Opinions on Legally Adjudicating Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence." This is the first judicial regulatory document issued by the country's highest judicial institution concerning artificial intelligence, consisting of five parts and 24 articles. It focuses on social hot issues such as AI face swapping, big data price discrimination, imitation of celebrities selling goods, autonomous driving, and intellectual property protection. The purpose is to clarify legal boundaries and responsibilities, and to ensure the healthy and orderly development of the AI industry.

Clarifying Three Basic Principles and Liability Regulation

The first part of the Opinions sets out the guiding ideology for cases involving artificial intelligence, clearly proposing three basic principles: people-oriented, supporting innovation and development, and strengthening safety measures, ensuring that judicial decisions balance technological innovation with law-based governance.

In terms of liability for infringement, the Opinions clarifies the determination of responsibility in scenarios such as personality rights, personal information rights, and consumer rights. It strictly regulates behaviors such as "AI face swapping and voice synthesis" and "AI resurrection of the deceased":

  • Using artificial intelligence to process the name and image of a natural person to create a recognizable virtual digital identity without consent and making it public constitutes an infringement of the right to name and portrait rights.
  • Using someone else's voice as training material without consent and imitating its tone and intonation to generate results constitutes an infringement of the right to voice.
  • Controlling a virtual image or synthesizing a voice to make false statements and lower others' social evaluation constitutes an infringement of reputation rights.
  • Creating and using a deceased person's virtual digital identity without permission, causing damage to their name, image, and reputation, allows the deceased's close relatives to legally request civil liability.
  • Regarding "online doxxing" and "human flesh search," the Opinions clarifies that using AI to track, analyze, eavesdrop, and leak private information constitutes an infringement of privacy rights. Additionally, regarding "big data price discrimination" and "imitating celebrities for sales" which constitute fraud, the Opinions clearly states that operators must bear corresponding liability for infringement, and consumers' claims for punitive damages will be supported.

Intellectual Property and Liability in Autonomous Driving

In terms of intellectual property protection, the Opinions covers five dimensions: determination of liability for infringement, legal liability of open-source software, patent authorization and confirmation, performance of technical contracts, and data usage standards, seeking a balance between encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of right holders.

Regarding the rapid development of autonomous driving and assisted driving technologies, the Opinions clarifies the rules for bearing responsibility in related traffic accidents:

  • If vehicle defects and the driver's fault jointly cause damage, the parties may legally request the driver and the manufacturer, seller to bear joint liability.
  • Regarding false advertising, the Opinions clearly states that car manufacturers who make false or misleading promotions about the level, performance, and use of autonomous driving, thereby harming consumer rights, will bear civil liability according to law.

Judicial Procedures and Future Mechanism Construction

Considering the high technicality and professionalism of such cases, the fourth part of the Opinions proposes exploring and improving rules for fact-finding and evidence review, legally regulating improper evidence collection and providing false materials that hinder judicial order, and generally stipulating the punishment for criminal acts committed using AI. The fifth part emphasizes improving dispute prevention and resolution, strengthening research and discussion, case guidance, inter-departmental collaboration, and international judicial exchanges to promote a concerted effort in AI governance.