‘Free Riding’ on Dilraba to Shoot a Lowbrow Short Drama, This A-Share Company Has ‘Acted’ Itself into Delisting

Star wins suit; AI face-swap scandal exposes industry abuse

Top actress Dilraba (迪丽热巴) sued two micro‑drama firms after it was alleged that a 44‑episode micro‑drama, Ni Qi (《逆骑》), used AI to “seamlessly” replace the heroine’s face with hers. Beijing Internet Court ruled that the producers — Fuyang Zhishang Culture Media Co. (阜阳志尚文化传媒有限公司) — and the distributor — Hangzhou Qianyan Wanyu Culture Communication Co. (杭州千炎万羽文化传播有限公司) — infringed Dilraba’s portrait rights, ordered public apologies and damages; both parties declined to appeal and the judgment is now effective. The case has become a touchstone for how generative AI is being deployed in China’s low‑budget content mills.

From celebrity infringement to corporate fallout

What makes the case far more than another celebrity rights victory is the corporate trail upwards. It has been reported that both firms are connected to Shanghai Aijicheng (上海爱极橙), which in turn is controlled by Zhejiang Furun (浙江富润, listed as *ST富润, ticker 600070) via its digital unit. Zhejiang Furun — once a top‑ten national dyeing and printing company turned A‑share listed group — is reported to have pivoted into “AI+short drama” as a last‑ditch bid to shore up valuation. The Dilraba ruling has not only damaged the implicated micro‑drama brands’ credibility, it has also become ammunition for market condemnation of Zhejiang Furun’s risky pivot.

A downfall writ in corporate strategy and market rules

How did a venerable industrial firm end up backing AI‑deepfake content? Reportedly, the company leveraged subsidiaries to enter a hyped micro‑drama market that prizes speed and cheap traffic over creative IP — and then leaned on trendy labels like “AI” and “short‑form” to court investors. That gamble failed: Zhejiang Furun triggered A‑share delisting rules after a prolonged share collapse and was formally removed from the exchange, a dramatic denouement that analysts say underscores the limits of concept‑driven rescues when operational fundamentals are poor.

Bigger picture: tech, copyright and regulation

The episode crystallizes two wider trends. First, the rapid lowering of barriers to generative AI has made “AI swap” and voice cloning an enforcement headache for Chinese celebrities and platforms alike — Yang Zi (杨紫) and others have issued similar warnings. Second, it spotlights China’s tightening stance on IP and platform liability: courts and regulators are increasingly unwilling to accept “technology neutrality” as a shield for infringement. For Western readers, the case is a reminder that China’s capital markets and cultural industries are entwined with tech hype and regulatory risk — and that generative AI disputes can quickly ripple from social feeds into boardrooms and stock exchanges.