Is It Illegal or Criminal to Generate NSFW Photos or Videos from a Coworker’s Photo Just for Yourself?

With the rapid iteration and optimization of AI models,

AI image generation and AI video generation

have already “entered ordinary households.”

All it takes is a clear, front-facing photo

and a suitable graphics card—although a CPU will also work if you do not mind waiting.

Face-swapping, body-swapping, changing clothes,

whether it is “one-click undressing”

or “image-to-video” generation,

no longer requires advanced technical knowledge.

You only need to download an “all-in-one package” and click the “Start” button.

Then, all that remains is to wait for the progress bar to reach 100%.

This may give someone a dangerous idea:

Generate some “NSFW” images or videos from a coworker’s photo, save them on your own computer, never post them online or sell them, and simply look at them for your own amusement…

So,

would generating “NSFW” images or videos from a coworker’s photo

infringe the coworker’s rights?

If the files are kept only on your own computer,

not distributed and not used for profit,

could it still be unlawful—or even criminal?

* This article represents only the author’s personal views and does not constitute legal advice.

I. Does “NSFW” Necessarily Mean an “Obscenity” Crime?

If it really is only generated locally for your own amusement,

unfortunately,

it is highly likely to constitute infringement, may be unlawful, but may not be criminal.

Generating softcore or explicit sexual images or videos from a coworker’s photo without consent may infringe the coworker’s portrait rights, human dignity, and other personality rights, even if the content is never distributed. If the generated content meets the legal standard for “obscene materials,” the act of “producing” it alone may also trigger a public-security penalty.

However, if the person genuinely has no profit motive, does not distribute the content, the generated subject is an adult, and the conduct does not involve voyeuristic recording, theft of information, extortion, or other unlawful acts, it will generally still not directly reach the level of a criminal offense.

What Are “Obscene Materials”?

Not everything that is “NSFW” qualifies as “obscene material.”

Under Article 367 of the Criminal Law, the core standard for obscene materials is that they specifically depict sexual acts or explicitly promote pornography and have a sexually corrupting character.

Put simply, merely making someone’s clothing more revealing does not necessarily constitute “obscene material.”

There was a “one-click undressing” case in 2024.

A programmer surnamed Bai at a Beijing company developed “one-click undressing” AI software. Using photos supplied by others, the software turned images of female celebrities, female coworkers, female classmates, and other women into nude images, which Bai sold for RMB 1.5 each for profit. According to the reported figures, Bai generated nearly 7,000 images, more than 1,500 of which were identified as obscene materials.

This shows that even when software is designed for “one-click undressing,” not 100% of the generated images will necessarily qualify as obscene materials.

The conduct may be disgusting, but criminal law must still be treated seriously.

II. Even Without Sending It to Anyone, the Conduct May Already Constitute Infringement

Fortunately, there are other avenues of legal relief.

Many people may still understand portrait rights this way:

If I do not sell the photo or even make it public, I have not infringed anyone’s portrait rights.

But Article 1019 of the Civil Code does more than prohibit the unauthorized “public disclosure” of another person’s likeness.

The law also makes clear that, without the portrait-rights holder’s consent, one generally may not produce or use that person’s likeness. It further prohibits infringing portrait rights through defacement, distortion, or forgery by means of information technology.

Placing a coworker’s face onto a body or into a scene that never existed

is plainly the use of information technology to create an identifiable, fabricated likeness.

Even if the generated body looks entirely different from the real person’s body, the conduct may still infringe portrait rights so long as the face makes it possible to recognize that “this is a particular person.”

Some “person” may still argue:

Does the Civil Code not permit the use of another person’s publicly available likeness, within a necessary scope, for art appreciation?

But generating “NSFW” images or videos from a coworker’s photo posted on WeChat Moments

is clearly difficult to characterize as “art appreciation” within a necessary scope.

Besides,

a photo that a coworker posts in a workplace group chat, on WeChat Moments, or in a private conversation

is not necessarily a photo made available to the general public.

What if the claim is “personal study or scientific research”—that someone merely grabbed a photo to test the generation results?

Strictly speaking, doing it once or twice might not count.

But if an entire folder is full of the images, or a LoRA has even been trained specifically for this purpose,

that is really no different from “making excuses.”

III. Is There Even a Major Difference Between a Local Model and an Online API?

If a completely offline local model is used to process the photo and generate the video,

then it may genuinely remain “non-public” (but that does not mean the conduct is lawful).

In reality, however, given the soaring cost of hardware,

most people do not use offline models.

Instead, they use third-party websites, apps, or even overseas online services—for example, the AI model run by the world’s richest man.

The moment the image finishes uploading,

before the user even clicks the “Generate” button,

the coworker’s photo has already been uploaded to the platform.

So the claim:

I did not show it to anyone. I only gave it to the AI to generate the content.

is itself a contradiction with a distinctly AI-era flavor.

As discussed before,

AI is not a person, but there is a platform behind the AI, and that platform has reviewers, data-cleaning staff, and other personnel.

A compliant platform will normally refuse to generate the content. That is the better scenario: the platform retains only the original photo.

A non-compliant platform may retain both the original and generated images or videos, use them for model training, or allow criminals to obtain and sell them.

Of course,

whether uploading a photo to a platform for processing constitutes “public disclosure” in the legal sense still depends on the platform’s method of processing, the scope of access, and subsequent use. It cannot be generalized.

But at least one point is clear:

once an online service is used, the claim that the content is “only viewed locally and privately” ceases to be true from the moment the photo is uploaded.

IV. When Does the Conduct Become Unlawful—or Even Criminal?

If the generated images or videos are identified as obscene materials,

even if they have not been sent to anyone,

and even if the conduct does not reach the criminal threshold,

there is still a risk of a public-security penalty.

Public-Security Penalties

Article 80 of the revised Public Security Administration Punishments Law, which took effect on January 1 of this year (2026), classifies producing, transporting, reproducing, selling, or leasing obscene materials—and disseminating obscene information through information networks, telephones, or other means—as public-security violations.

Notice that the provision covers more than “selling” and “disseminating.”

It also covers:

producing.

“I did not send it to anyone” can at most rule out dissemination and sale.

But the moment the workflow finishes, the act of “producing” has already been completed.

Of course, whether a penalty will actually be imposed still depends on whether the content meets the standard for obscene materials, as well as the quantity, methods, consequences, social harm, and other specific circumstances.

Criminal Offenses

As for criminal liability,

the offense under Article 363 of the Criminal Law involving the production or dissemination of obscene materials for profit requires the purpose of making a profit. The offense of disseminating obscene materials under Article 364 requires an act of dissemination that reaches the threshold of serious circumstances.

Therefore, if the generated subject is an adult, and the person neither seeks profit nor distributes the content or commits any other unlawful act, it is indeed difficult under current laws and regulations to directly characterize the conduct as a crime of producing, selling, or disseminating obscene materials.

But take just one more “step,” for example:

• sending it to a friend or dropping it into a group chat for others to “appreciate”;
• uploading it to cloud storage;
• accepting paid custom-generation requests;
• using the image to insult someone or fabricate sexual rumors about them;
• using the images or videos to threaten a coworker into transferring money, having sex, or voting—or refraining from voting—a certain way;

and the conduct may further involve liability for disseminating obscene materials, producing or disseminating obscene materials for profit, insult, defamation, or extortion.

What if the subject is a minor?

Then the matter goes straight to the next level:

the punishment is directly aggravated.

V. Conclusion

Finally, to answer the title’s question once again:

Is it unlawful to generate “NSFW” photos or videos from a coworker’s photo solely for private viewing?

If there is no consent and the coworker remains identifiable,

the conduct is highly likely to have infringed the coworker’s portrait rights, human dignity, and other personality rights.

If the content meets the standard for obscene materials,

producing it alone may result in a public-security penalty.

Is it a crime?

Under the strict conditions that the subject is an adult, everything occurs locally, and there is no profit motive, dissemination, or other unlawful means,

it will generally still be difficult to directly establish a crime of producing or disseminating obscene materials.

But “not criminal”

only means that criminal law has not yet entered the scene.

It does not mean that civil law and the Public Security Administration Punishments Law cannot apply.

More importantly,

as long as the file still exists,

there will always be a possibility that it is synchronized, uploaded, forwarded, or leaked.

Phones get lost.

Computers break—unless they are never sent out for repair.

Cloud storage leaks.

An unlawful platform may simply retain the file.

One sentence—“Take a look, but don’t share it”—

is enough to make the original claim of “private viewing only” completely fail.

So,

do not generate it if you can avoid it; if you already have, delete it immediately.

AI has lowered the technical barrier to producing this kind of content

to the press of a button.

But our boundaries

should not—and must not—be lowered with it.

Finally, consider one more question:

Would it be infringement to use a coworker’s extremely common name to write an “NSFW” story?