On July 14, 2026, the academic lecture titled The Propertization of Name and Likeness in the AI Era was successfully held in Room 402, Mingde Law Building. Co-organized by the Law School, Renmin Law and Technology Institute, and Intellectual Property School of Renmin University of China, together with the WIPO Office in China, the lecture featured Professor John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, as the keynote speaker. Professor and Vice-Dean Ding Xiaodong of the Renmin University of China Law School, presided over the event. Professor Jin Haijun from the Law School and Professor Zhang Jiyu, Executive Director of the Renmin Law and Technology Institute of Renmin University of China, served as discussants.

Keynote Speech：

      In his keynote speech, Professor Duffy systematically examined the propertization trend of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rights. Drawing on the Danish copyright‑law revision and NCAA‑athlete litigations as examples, he confirmed that the notion of property rights is emerging from the bottom up. Invoking Harold Demsetz’s property‑rights theory, he argued that new property rights arise when the benefits of internalizing externalities exceed the associated costs. He then drew an analogy with the historical evolution of trademark rights, pointing out that both originated from state‑mandated requirements and initially took shape in the form of tort liability. Finally, he set forth six predictions for the future development of NIL property rights. Citing the historical shift toward spectrum property rights in the United States, which displaced administrative controls, he illustrated that the property‑rights paradigm can manage complex problems through simplicity and reduce unnecessary governmental regulation.

Discussant Comments：

      During the session for discussant comments, Professor Jin Haijun began his analysis based on the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China. He pointed out that although current Chinese law classifies names and likenesses as personality rights rather than property rights, the proprietary value of these personal indicia is de‑facto recognized through differentiated assessment of damages. He further raised reservations about Denmark’s copyright‑based model for the protection of personal likenesses, suggesting that a trademark‑oriented approach might operate more smoothly. In response, Professor Duffy stated that he had initially favoured the trademark approach. Nevertheless, he later realized that the process of forming one’s personal likeness generally involves a minimal degree of creativity. He therefore remained open‑minded toward Denmark’s copyright proposal and regarded it as a differentiated exploratory attempt.

      Professor Zhang Jiyu focused on the issue of layered protection. She raised the following question: for different scenarios of exploiting personal indicia, such as derogatory use, commercial endorsement, and use solely for AI model training, should protection be granted with varying intensities and scopes, and can such distinctions be integrated into the property‑rights framework advocated by Professor Duffy?

      Professor Duffy responded that a core strength of the property‑rights regime lies in its simplicity. By vesting rightholders with exclusive rights, they may directly control the exploitation of their own indicia without having to prove the category of their interests on a case‑by‑case basis, thereby avoiding complex ad‑hoc balancing. Drawing on his academic background in physics as a metaphor, he noted that just as science favours simple models to grasp fundamental principles, legal rules should also pursue parsimony to reveal the core logic of institutions.

      In the subsequent Q&A session, students present engaged in exchanges with Professor Duffy regarding several issues: the ambiguous boundaries of NIL rights, whether the U.S. NIL regime applies exclusively to NCAA athletes, and demarcation challenges under multiple‑layered legal regulation of personal data.

      Professor Duffy offered point‑by‑point responses. First, some degree of indeterminacy is inherent to all property rights, ranging from patent rights to land rights. Drawing on his personal experience of purchasing real property only to later discover errors in boundary markers, he noted that such ambiguity is not unique to NIL rights. Second, NIL has long transcended collegiate‑sports contexts. It is widely applied to professional athletes and online influencers and represents a global phenomenon. Third, the property‑rights paradigm has the potential to consolidate the current fragmented body of data‑protection laws under unified and concise rules, much as radio‑spectrum property rights superseded numerous cumbersome administrative regulatory regimes in U.S. history.

      Professor Ding Xiaodong thanked Professor Duffy in his closing remarks for his theoretically rigorous and practically insightful lecture. He pointed out that the talk offered an important comparative‑law perspective for reflecting on the propertization of personal indicia in the AI era, and expressed the hope that Professor Duffy would visit again in the future to advance dialogue on relevant research topics.

      The lecture concluded successfully with a group photograph of faculty and students.