This is Roundtable.
I'm Steve Hatherly, joined today by Yushun and Yushan.
Coming up.
The era of digital resurrection has begun, blurring the line between a meaningful tribute and a disturbing violation.
This ethical crisis was sparked when a tea company here in China used a recreated version of a late scholar to sell a product.
Yes, I put that in question form on purpose.
But it leaves us to wonder, is that okay?
Or do lines need to be drawn to protect the rights of those who have passed?
After that motivational Monday time.
If your Monday needs a little motivating, you have come to the right place.
Stay tuned for that.
Our podcast listeners can find us at Roundtable China on Apple Podcasts.
And don't forget, we love hearing your voice.
So send us a voice note with your thoughts on any of the issues that we discuss here today.
On the program, here's how you do that.
Roundtablepodcastatqq.com.
Once again, roundtablepodcastatqq.com.
And now The emergence of AI, capable of resurrecting the voices and images of the deceased, presents a pretty big ethical dilemma.
Yes, the tech is there, and yes, it is impressive.
But while it offers powerful new tools for preserving legacy and facilitating grief...
It simultaneously forces us to confront really urgent questions about consent and dignity and commercial exploitation.
A recent campaign featuring a digitally recreated late tea scholar.
It was used by a tea company here in the country.
It's ignited this very debate and it makes us ask where exactly should we draw the line between what is a meaningful tribute to and on ethical use.
This is a really kind of interesting story.
So tell us what that story is.
So this story, as you mentioned it in this one minute long video, Zhang Tianfu, who is a renowned tea scholar in China, said he had lived to 180 years old and had been tasting and trying tea for more than 80 years.
And then he shared some tea tasting skills and the benefits of drinking tea and something like that.
And this Zhang Tianfu was a renowned Chinese tea scholar and recognized as one of China's 10 leading modern tea experts.
And he was also held as a master of contemporary Chinese tea culture.
Yeah, and I think the whole highlight of this incident we're talking about is because Here, in this public debate, we see that Mr Zhang, as Yusheng you just mentioned, he passed away at the age of 108 years old back in 2017.
And then lately, a video that was released by the WeChat account of Zhang Tianfu Tea Industry, operated by Fujian Zhang Tianfu Brand Management Company, So the brand named after Zhang Tianfu.
Yeah.
Okay.
So they were kind of making this AI video.
And also the company staff stated that the video was produced under authorization from Mr Zhang Tianfu's son.
Yeah, Zhang Deyou.
That's who he is.
And On actually October the 15th, Zhang Deyou stated that he had been legally authorized by his late father, tea master Zhang Tianfu, to manage and also use his image, voice and signature.
While he was alive?
Yes.
The AI-generated video was meant to promote tea culture, and that was his stand.
That was why he thinks that he can authorize to this company the image.
And that is totally okay to create a resurrected AI image of his deceased father.
Well, his son is the CEO of this company.
Or rather the charitable... The foundation.
Yeah, the foundation.
Because he is kind of the chairman of this foundation and then this foundation authorized to the company to use the image and also voice of Zhang Tianfu.
But the thing is that and also here comes the conflict Zhang Tianfu's widow, Zhang Xiaohong, strongly objected, calling the video disrespectful and misleading, and said she would take legal action.
And also friends of Zhang Tianfu also criticized the AI video as an insult to his legacy.
What were some of the comments that people left when the video was posted?
Some of them are just paying and sending grief to this expert and scholar.
Some of them are just saying that.
Thank you for sharing that kind of idea and knowledge on tasting tea.
And some of them realize that this is AI generated and they don't think it is appropriate using the image.
Mixed comments and people would say this is something that we need to discuss on.
Are we really showing respect by using that or this is not?
This is where the Internet's divided and, as far as I know, there were some comments as well that weren't related to the video itself, just people leaving their own link for their own advertising, their own AI services.
Yeah.
Like in um, not particularly in this case.
That's for some other cases when someone else make an AI generated content, video content on I think it was on some singer who passed away.
And then, underneath that um video, in the comment section people were saying that Oh, do you want to make similar video?
I've got the tech.
Yeah, so this is where legally, we stand on one side.
And then there's the whole gray ethical area as well.
But when it comes to, let's get into the legality of things, because when it comes to digital resurrection, there are different levels of this.
Levels?
I think by legal gray areas we're referring to the current laws that And it's not just in China, it's in many countries, including China, that protect personal image and reputation but often lack career roles for digital rights of the deceased ones.
So here is the biggest question.
Who owns a person's digital self after death?
Is it the family members, the state or the platforms that generate such avatars of these deceased people?
So without robust legal frameworks, currently it's still kind of difficult to hold violators accountable.
And in this particular case I think Yusheng, you mentioned that the the son of the deceased tea master.
He attached a portrait rights licensing agreement that included the term permanent authorization, with the tea master's handwritten signature in the end.
But here's the thing.
Back then when he hand signed that agreement, AI wasn't even a thing for them.
So how much of authorization coverage does that require? really mean to generations like this.
Some of the experts actually explained on the different levels of digital resurrection.
Wang Qi, an associate professor at the School of Law Beihang University, said that digital resurrection can be divided into several tiers, depending on the level of intelligence of such digital human generated intelligence, meaning what the ai image is capable of do, or what it's doing yeah, the capability of the kind of technological tools.
I would say.
The simplest form uses ai to make photos of the deceased move, allowing the digital person to display basic expressions or gestures, And then a more advanced form enables interactive communication, allowing the digital person to talk with others.
And the most advanced form features learning capabilities allowing the digital person to continuously learn from the real individual's online activities and maintain interactions with family and friends even after death.
That reminded me of a, I think, American TV series that's called Upload.
You can upload your, actually your brain, your idea, your mind.
Upload you.
Yeah, onto an internet server.
Then you can live forever, like so-called live forever because you are living that digital world.
But that's all like sci-fi.
This is contentious and it's contentious for good reasons.
And we can find...
Negative examples, I think, and we can find positive examples.
Yeah, Yushan, you're right.
What I was talking about before, about netizens commenting with advertisements.
That was when an actor and a singer passed away.
And those were the comments like advertising AI products.
And it made a lot of people uncomfortable.
The father of that late actor publicly stated that he could not accept this, and he hoped that such videos would be taken down publicly.
As soon as possible.
And then similarly, the mother of the singer issued a lawyer's statement demanding the removal and deletion of the short video series.
This would be seen by and for good reason.
Very, very insensitive to the family members because they're trying to presumably make some sort of profit, or at least promotion, out of this.
That's on the bad side.
But there's also positive examples, too.
Yeah.
One very iconic example in this case would be the musician Baoxiao by Story, where he used the artificial intelligence technology back in 2024 to create a digital human of his age.
22-year-old daughter who passed away in 2021.
So, Mr Bao, he publicly announced many often that he just couldn't bear the sorrow of having to live a life without his daughter.
So Basically, AI technology here is utilized in his case to recreate something for him, to pay his tribute and just to remember his daughter in this way.
Yeah, but there's a bit, sorry to interrupt you, but there's one major difference there.
His daughter.
Exactly.
He is the person who generated the content and also the family of the deceased in this case, who is able to authorize the right to the technology company to utilize the voices and image of his deceased daughter.
But in many other cases we mentioned, that's not usually the case.
It's not the case.
Yeah.
So what are the ethical?
I mean there must be a laundry list, but what are some of the ethical concerns here?
Hmm.
Consentment is absolutely one of the things, right?
The deceased cannot provide informed consent for how their image, voice, or personality is used.
Without explicit prior authorization, such recreations risk violating their dignity and also personal wishes and, as seen in recent controversies, such
As AI-generated videos of deceased singer and actor mentioned above.
Families have publicly objected to what they view as emotional or commercial exploitation because, even though you say, or the people who generate it say, it is paying their respect and paying their grief or something, maybe some people that relate to them don't think so.
It is just a Yeah.
I don't know why I'm drawing this comparison, but in Canada you can sign an organ donor card for when you pass away.
Same here.
Yeah okay, so that's giving consent to use your kidneys or your lungs or whatever organs they can for someone who needs them.
But you sign that card.
They don't just take it without your consent.
It's not the same, but it's kind of the same.
Because they're using your likeness, your voice.
The technology is there to clone a person's voice.
Body mannerisms, the way they move and talk for the sake of promotion or for the sake of sale.
It's pretty easy to see why families could be emotionally upset by this for sure.
Legally, this is a gray area too, I would think, because you know, You said well, AI didn't exist when this man was alive.
Well, these types of situations didn't exist in the legal world either.
Yeah.
And current laws in many countries, including China, protect personal image and reputation, but often maybe lack clear rules for digital posthumous rights.
Yeah.
Questions then may remain.
Who owns a person's digital self after death?
Here's the thing.
Article 994 of China's civil code clearly stipulates that if the name image reputation honor, privacy or remains of a deceased person are infringed upon the spouse, the children and parents, they have the right to demand civil liability from the infringer.
And this means that in legal terms, a deceased person's portrait rights transform into a protected interest rather than a continuing civil rights.
So here's the conclusion i'm drawing, that is, there's a very fine line between the ethical sliding kind of disadvantage and also the legality of using this protected interest of someone who's passed away.
That is, if the purpose of you using it, like in the musician Bao Xiaobai's case, the purpose is merely to remember and to just for him to put down the sorrow of losing a loved one But then for others, if it comes to commercialized use which is also partially why the Tea Master's case is inspiring such a huge discussion nowadays is, what are you using the dead man's image and voices for?
If this is a promotion of your company, even though it's under his own name.
But it's still commercial.
It's difficult to legally, perhaps legally define intent.
So true, yeah.
How do you say whether this is for commercial use or whether this is for honoring a memory?
And this tea case is such a hot potato?
Because it's his son who's in charge of the foundation, but it was his mother or stepmother, we don't know the relationship there, but she's the one who said no.
So this is a real in-family situation.
In America, if you're curious to know, because I didn't know about it the legal boundaries for using deceased people in AI advertisements.
There's currently kind of a patchwork of state-level laws in America.
But there's no comprehensive federal legislation.
But the legality hinges on the right of publicity meaning, does the estate have the right to say yes, you can use this image, or no, you cannot?
And that... goes state by state.
There are approximately 24 states that recognize a post-mortem right of publicity.
And also, I found this to be interesting.
The duration of the right varies widely from 10 to 100, over 100 years after death.
For example, California law protects for 70 years, but some states offer no posthumous protection at all, meaning that in those jurisdictions, a deceased person's likeness could potentially be used without in any consent at all.
So it seems that legally, we're in a in a stage where some sort of specifications need to be put in place, because there seems like a big, giant gray area.
For all interesting story though, and probably one that we'll be talking about again and again and again, at least for the next while You're listening to Roundtable.
Stick around.
We've got Motivational Monday on the way.
Can we change that?
By the way, it just sounds mad.
Uh, motivational monday time and yushan, you're gonna share with us first.
Yeah so um, the today's topic, uh one, the first topic, the policy change, actually inspired me and reminded me that life doesn't follow one fixed timeline and So many of us people feel anxious about age.
We worry we're not where we are quote unquote supposed to be, that we haven't reached certain milestones, or that maybe we've missed our chance to start something new.
But that's the thing about life, it's not a race.
It's never too late to begin again, and I think a lot of people know that old saying the best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago and the second best time is now.
So Whether it's a new career or dream you once set aside, or simply a new habit that makes your life a little bit brighter, that moment you decide to start is already a victory.
So we all grow at different speeds, in different directions, and some people bloom maybe early and others take time to root deeply before they rise.
But every stage, every restart adds something valuable to who we are.
It's a little bit.
No, it's a lot unreasonable to assume, no matter where you're from in the world, that you would have your life figured out by the age of 22.
When you graduate from university, you might not even know what you're interested in.
You might not even know what you're good at at that age.
I didn't know that I would have a career in broadcasting until the age of what?
26 or 27 years old.
I didn't plan on that beforehand.
So how are you supposed to prepare for things that you don't even know are coming?
And we right, it doesn't make sense.
Yeah, we mentioned earlier um, in the first topic that, if there's there are chinese idioms like such as as in you should be grounded with a certain job or a life expected life at the age of 30.
But hey, back then, people's average age limits, lifetime, lifespan isn't that long either.
And 50 years old is considered old enough.
So yeah, it only makes sense that if we remain flexible and go with your heart, go with the flow and don't get yourself fixed on certain age,
Very quickly.
So neither of you buy into that 35-year-old threshold thing?
You don't believe it?
We haven't gotten to that age yet to believe it.
But yeah, I do believe it exists, let's say.
And also don't let age or fear stop you.
Well said.
And that will do it for today's roundtable.
Thank you very much for sharing your time with us today.
Thank you to the under 35s on the show, Yushan and Yushan.
I'm the over 35 group.
See you next time.
