Behind the rise of AI short dramas in law firms, how can compliance and copyright risks in lawyers' public legal education content be prevented in 2026?
Lead
Since the beginning of 2026, law firm AI short dramas have become a new phenomenon in content dissemination within the legal industry. The "Silly Kid" series by Beijing Yunjia Law Firm, "Beyond the Boundary" by Shanghai Jintiancheng (Haikou) Law Firm, "Trademark Defense Battle" by Shanghai Fengzhao Law Firm, and a public-interest short drama by Guangdong Lianyue (Dongguan) Law Firm focusing on the rights protection of minor children in "dual-prisoner families" have all used AI technology as a vehicle to adapt real cases into dramatized content. Total views of AI short dramas across the internet reached 4.97 billion by January 2026. What law firms value is the reach efficiency and trust-building value of "binge-watching-style legal popularization." But as practicing lawyers, we are more concerned with this: when real cases are brought onto AI short dramas, how is client privacy protected? Who owns the copyright to AI-generated visuals, scripts, and digital human likenesses? Does content with business promotion characteristics published by law firms cross the red line of advertising compliance? If these issues are not resolved, legal popularization short dramas may very well turn from a "bonus" into a "risk."
I. Adaptation of Real Cases: Client Authorization and De-identification Are Insurmountable Professional Bottom Lines
The core source material for law firm AI short dramas is the cases that lawyers have actually handled. The "Silly Kid" series by Yunjia explicitly solicits original case materials—such as judgments, attorney statements, and evidence lists—from all lawyers, which are then de-identified and dramatized by dedicated staff. This process sounds smooth, but the legal risks lie precisely in the word "de-identification."
According to Article 38 of the Lawyers Law, lawyers shall keep confidential state secrets and commercial secrets learned in the course of practicing law, and shall not disclose the privacy of clients. Article 33 of the Measures for the Administration of Lawyers' Practice further clarifies that lawyers shall keep confidential relevant circumstances and information learned in the course of practicing law that clients and other persons are unwilling to disclose. This means that even if a case has already been publicly adjudicated, identifiable information such as the parties' names, addresses, ID numbers, contact information, and specific transaction details still falls within the scope of confidentiality. In practice, when adapting cases, some law firms only anonymize the parties' names but retain elements such as the specific time, place, amount, and company industry involved in the case. Taken together, these may still allow a particular circle to identify the real identity, constituting an infringement of the parties' right to privacy or rights and interests in personal information.
Articles 1032 and 1034 of the Civil Code set out clear provisions on the protection of privacy rights and personal information. If the content of a short drama leads to the parties concerned being subjected to "doxxing" or a decline in their social evaluation, the law firm and the handling lawyer may face civil compensation and even industry discipline. In legal practice, it is recommended that law firms obtain the written authorization of the parties concerned when soliciting material, clearly stipulating the scope of adaptation, release channels, whether to attribute authorship, and remuneration arrangements; carry out "irreversible anonymization" of case elements, that is, deleting or blurring all identifiable information; and where minors, victims of sexual assault, or parties to family disputes are involved, apply stricter standards and, when necessary, abandon the adaptation.
II. Copyright and Portrait Rights in AI-Generated Content: Technical Convenience Cannot Replace Rights Review
The production chain of law firm AI short dramas typically includes script generation, storyboard design, image generation, voiceover synthesis, and editing output. In this process, whether the images and sounds produced by AI tools enjoy copyright and whether they may infringe on the rights of others are new issues that law firms must face.
According to Article 3 of the Copyright Law, a work refers to an intellectual achievement that is original and can be expressed in a certain form in the fields of literature, art, and science. In current judicial practice, whether AI-generated content can constitute a work depends on whether humans have made original intellectual contributions. If a law firm merely inputs simple prompts and has AI generate images with one click, the images are likely not to be recognized as works, and the law firm will find it difficult to claim copyright. However, if lawyers or the project team have made substantive selections and arrangements regarding the script, storyboard, character settings, and image composition, a protected work may be formed. The "AI text-to-image copyright case" heard by the Beijing Internet Court in 2023 confirmed that the plaintiff demonstrated intellectual input in the process of using AI tools to generate images and therefore enjoyed copyright. Law firms should retain complete records of the creation process, including prompts, modification records, and traces of manual adjustments, so as to provide evidence in the event of a rights dispute.
Portrait rights risks should not be overlooked either. If a digital human character in an AI short drama is based on a real person, or if an AI-generated virtual image closely resembles a well-known figure, it may trigger the provisions on portrait rights under Article 1019 of the Civil Code. Using another person's portrait without permission, even after AI "re-creation," may constitute infringement as long as it can still be identified as a specific natural person. When selecting digital human images, law firms should use original virtual characters or obtain model authorization to avoid resembling celebrities or public figures.
3. Advertising compliance boundaries for legal popularization short dramas: Professional promotion must not become illegal publicity.
Although law firm AI short dramas are made in the name of legal popularization, their objectives of brand communication and case conversion objectively exist. Pan Feng, director of Fengzhao Law Firm, also admitted that "Trademark Defense Battle" plays the role of "building awareness" and "laying the groundwork for trust," and that after the series was released, some viewers consulted about trademark issues through private messages. This involves a key question: does the short drama content published by a law firm constitute commercial advertising?
According to Article 2 of the Advertising Law, this Law applies to commercial advertising activities in which a commodity operator or service provider, through a certain medium and form, directly or indirectly introduces the commodities or services it promotes. If a law firm's short drama includes the law firm's name, lawyers' images, displays of practice areas, and contact information prompts, and is intended to promote legal services, it is very likely to be recognized as commercial advertising. In that case, the content must not contain false or misleading information, must not make guaranteed promises about the effects of legal services, and must not use the name or image of state organs or their staff.
Article 77 of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers imposes stricter constraints on lawyer advertising: lawyers may not promote their practice through improper means such as promising case outcomes, explicitly or implicitly suggesting special relationships with judicial authorities or their staff, or disparaging other lawyers or law firms. If an AI-generated short drama contains implications such as "guaranteed to win the case," "well-connected," or "having someone on the inside," even if labeled "fictional," it may still be deemed improper advertising. In 2025, judicial administrative authorities in multiple regions have already imposed penalties for violations in lawyers' online promotion, and as law firm short dramas are an emerging format, regulatory scrutiny will only become stricter.
Practical legal advice: For completed short drama episodes, a dual review system covering both legal and content aspects should be implemented. Licensed lawyers should review legal points, procedural statements, and the boundaries of rights, while compliance personnel should vet advertising language, party information, and copyrighted materials. When the two conflict, legal rigor should take priority. At the same time, the publishing pages of short dramas should avoid absolute terms such as "win rate," "gold medal lawyer," and "best," and consultation prompts should be objective and restrained.
IV. Compliance Operation Checklist and Lawyer Value for Law Firm AI Short Dramas
From the practical experience of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm in handling cases involving cultural media, intellectual property, and lawyer practice compliance, for a law firm to launch an AI short drama project, it should at least complete the following actions: First, establish a case material solicitation and authorization template, clearly specifying the standards for the client's written consent to adaptation, publication, and de-identification. Second, conduct a copyright traceability review of content generated by AI tools, retain records of human creation, and avoid using unauthorized music, fonts, and film or television clips. Third, digital human images should be original or authorized, avoiding overlap with the identifiability of real people. Fourth, before the final film is released, it should be reviewed by both practicing lawyers and compliance personnel, with a focus on verifying legal accuracy, advertising language, and private information. Fifth, establish a public opinion monitoring and infringement complaint response mechanism, and once objections are received from clients or third parties, promptly take it down, make modifications, and retain records of the handling.
AI short dramas have opened a new window for law firms to conduct legal education, but the professionalism and compliance of legal services remain the foundation of their standing. Technology can lower production costs, but it cannot lower legal risks. For law firms and lawyer teams hoping to try AI short dramas, it is advisable to bring in professional legal counsel before the project launches and design a compliance framework for the entire content production process. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long focused on lawyer practice compliance, intellectual property protection, and new media legal risks, and can provide law firms and enterprises with specialized services such as short drama content compliance review, copyright layout, and advertising compliance consulting, enabling legal education innovation to advance more steadily and go further.
