 "Though the characters of the boyband Plave are virtual, they are voiced and animated by anonymous real-life performers. Reuters")
Can you defame a virtual pop star?
A South Korean court has ruled that you can. The court has ordered a social media user to pay up for making derogatory remarks against members of a virtual K-pop boyband.
The lawsuit was filed by the agency of the virtual pop band against the social media user.
This is one of the first rulings that deal with virtual pop stars.
But what happened? What do we know? Let’s take a closer look.
What happened?
The ruling was made by the Goyang branch of the Uijeongbu District Court in South Korea’s Gyeonggi province . It deals with the virtual pop group Plave, which comprises five virtual characters – Yejun, Noah, Bamby, Eunho, and Hamin. The avatars, who have brightly coloured hair, are drawn in the form of manhwa – the style of Korean comics.
Though the characters of the boyband are virtual, they are voiced and animated by anonymous real-life performers. This is done using motion capture technology – which has been used in several Hollywood films such as The Lord of the Rings and Planet of the Apes. The performers also interact with fans and pick up awards using their avatars.
The band, which debuted in 2023, has over one million followers on YouTub e. The band has also won awards for their music, including Best Vocal Performance and Song of the Year for the song Way 4 Luv, and another prize at the Seoul Music Awards.
In July 2024, the social media user targeted the virtual band in a series of posts . The user claimed that the people behind the avatars “could be ugly in real life”. The user also said that the performers displayed a “typical Korean man vibe” and used profanity against them.
The performers then filed a case against the social media user – named ‘B’ in court documents – through their agency Vlast in 2024, claiming they had suffered emotional distress. The performers asked that the court award them a total of around $23,000 ( Rs 20.50 lakh) as compensation.
Arguments in court
The social media user in court claimed that the comments targeted the avatars and not the performers themselves. The user also argued that they could not be held liable for defamation as the group comprises fictional characters.
However, the court did not accept that argument. The court said that avatars are widely recognised as part of self-expression and social interaction. The court held that if an avatar is widely known as representing a person, insulting the avatar is akin to insulting the person.
“The victim should be specified for the crime of insult, but it does not necessarily mean (the victim’s) name or group has to be specified. The specification (of the victim) can be accomplished if the people who know about the victim are made aware of who the insults are targeting, based on the expression and the circumstances,” the court said in its ruling.
“The avatar in the era of the metaverse is more than a virtual image, but a way of expression of the user, one’s identity, and one’s way of communicating with society,” the court added. “When considering the fact that B also committed the offences in question with that information in mind, it must be concluded that B specifically targeted the plaintiffs.”
The court ordered the user to pay each member of the virtual pop group $72 (Rs 6,347). While Vlast has said that this is an important ruling which establishes a precedent with regard to defamation when it comes to avatars, it has vowed to appeal the ruling to seek more money from the defendant.
Vlast has also warned that it will take legal action against those who comment on the real-life identities of the performers. Virtual performers have been slowly increasing in popularity in South Korea.
With inputs from agencies