Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
The Supreme People's Court issued Fa Fa [2026] No. 10, addressing synthetic voices identifying natural persons, liability for generated infringing content, evidence for developers' non-infringement defences and protection of lawful data interests.
What changed
The Supreme People's Court issued Fa Fa [2026] No. 10, addressing synthetic voices identifying natural persons, liability for generated infringing content, evidence for developers' non-infringement defences and protection of lawful data interests.
Only institutional provisions relevant to artistic creation are included. This is not described as a new law banning all AI training, nor are training-evidence requirements expanded into a duty for every model to disclose all data.
Editorial research question
Editorial interpretation: institutional comparison connecting imitation of natural persons' voices, evidence in generated-content infringement and data interests; it does not replace records of artists' actions.
This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.
Evidence & sources
The Supreme People's Court issued Fa Fa [2026] No. 10, addressing synthetic voices identifying natural persons, liability for generated infringing content, evidence for developers' non-infringement defences and protection of lawful data interests.
SRC-0242Body lines 52–91, particularly provisions 4, 12, 16 and 17; publication date at line 25.
Supreme People's Court · ZH · 2026-09-07
Case
Related documents
DOC-0230Supreme People's Court opinions on adjudicating AI-related disputes in accordance with lawCite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “Supreme People's Court issues judicial opinions on AI-related disputes.” evt-0235. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.