Filed under data-property-rights
Every brief tagged "data-property-rights".
- § 01 · METEOROLOGICAL-DATA
The CMA Keeps the Keys: China's First Sectoral Rules for Public Meteorological Data Authorized Operation
In March 2026 the Office of the China Meteorological Administration issued the Measures for the Administration of the Authorized Operation of Public Meteorological Data (Trial) — 公共气象数据授权运营管理办法（试行）, Qi Ban Fa [2026] No. 23 — the first complete sector-specific implementation of the NDRC/NDA authorized-operation framework inside a national vertical system that DCC has recorded. DCC has translated the full 39-article text. The design departs from the national baseline in one consistent direction: control. Operating terms are capped at three years against the national five; operating institutions pass a provincial review, a CMA maturity assessment and the CMA's own 'three majors and one large' deliberation before they may even bid; downstream developers become a third catalogued and supervised tier; nobody but an implementing institution may sub-authorize data, even disguised as cooperative development; and no product trades without a CMA-issued meteorological-data identity tag registered on the CMA's circulation supervision platform. Read against the National Data Administration's Data Property Rights Registration Work Guide — whose public-data clause lets products formed through authorized operation take property-rights registration and circulate as certificated market assets — the meteorological version keeps the development right inside the system: what a market entity gets is a term-limited, contract-based service role inside CMA infrastructure, not a registrable right over what it builds.
- § 02 · DATA-ASSETS
Two Registrations, One Word: China's New Data-Asset Standards and the Line Between 登记 and 登记
On 2 July 2026 China issued two national standards for data as an asset — GB/T 47949-2026 (classification and codes) and GB/T 47950-2026 (registration guidance) — both effective 1 September 2026. They give data assets a fixed place in the asset-classification code system (block A0806020000, including a first-ever asset code for AI-training multimodal data measured in tokens) and a step-by-step model for putting data on an organization's own books. The trap for overseas counsel is the word 登记 (registration): these MOF/SAC standards register data as an asset internally, while the National Data Administration's Data Property Rights Registration Work Guide (Trial), finalized 1 July 2026, registers rights in data externally through a certificated institution. Same word, two regimes, two artifacts, two purposes. This DCC brief separates them, reads the two standards for what they require, and explains why the 入表 (balance-sheet entry) vs 确权 (rights confirmation) distinction keeps tripping up data-asset deals.
- § 03 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
China's Data Property Rights Registration Guide Is Final: The Draft-to-Trial Diff
On 1 July 2026, the National Data Administration issued the Data Property Rights Registration Work Guide (Trial), converting its April 2026 consultation draft into China's first national framework for registering the Right to Hold Data, Right to Use Data and Right to Operate Data. The final text keeps the same six-chapter, 42-article structure, but the diff is not cosmetic: security and public-interest gates are stronger; derived data is now defined; the national infrastructure shifts from a service platform to a service system; registrars face tighter qualification, disclosure, annual-evaluation, change-reporting and exit rules; public-data registration is softened from mandatory to conditional/voluntary wording; unclear contractual entitlement receives a cure path; evidence preservation, not certificate issuance, now starts the validity period; and certificate use is sharpened for data-asset balance-sheet entry, financing guarantees and valuation-based equity contribution.
- § 04 · DATA-ECONOMY
Li Yang: Why 'Data Rights-Confirmation' Is a Category Error — Dynamic Data Can't Be a Registration Object, and AUCL Article 13 Is the Better Path
DCC's summary of an opinion piece by Li Yang (李扬), professor at China University of Political Science and Law, arguing that the whole project of 'data rights-confirmation' (数据确权) — and the data-IP registration pilots run under it — rests on a category error. In Chinese IP law, 'confirmation' (确权) is the authoritative validation of an already-existing right, and it presupposes three things data lacks: a determinate object, defined rights content, and clear boundaries. Civil Code Art. 127 only defers the question; 'data IP' is a policy concept, not a legal one; and data is co-produced by many parties, so registration proves who submitted data, not who owns it. Li Yang's sharpest move is the dynamic-object problem: registration regimes (real estate, IP, equity) require a persistently stable object, but data's value lives in continuous updating, so the data at registration is never the data in dispute — and blockchain/hash/timestamp '存证' only fix a historical snapshot, never the living data stream, confusing proof-of-existence with object-identification. He concludes that registration's real functions are evidentiary and publicity/transaction-support — not rights-confirmation — and that data governance should move from rights-confirmation to interest-protection, from static-rights thinking to dynamic-competition thinking, protecting commercial-data interests under Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. DCC's read for overseas counsel, against the data-IP registration regime and the Beijing Internet Court's first AUCL Article 13 ruling.
- § 05 · ANTI-UNFAIR-COMPETITION
How the Beijing Internet Court Found a Platform 'Lawfully Held' Its Data Under the New AUCL Article 13 — and Where It Meets the 'Right to Hold Data'
The Beijing Internet Court's 30 April 2026 judgment — the first published application of the data clause (Article 13) of the 2025-revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law, effective 15 October 2025 — turns on one threshold question: did the plaintiff platform 'lawfully hold' (合法持有) the scraped career data? DCC walks through exactly how the court got to 'yes', step by step: the data originated as personal information collected with user consent under the platform's Service Agreement and Privacy Policy (no unlawful processing on record); the operator's build-and-run investment aggregated scattered records into a dataset with standalone economic value; and that dataset is the foundational input for the platform's matching business and competitive advantage. From those three findings the court derives its operative definition — data lawfully collected/stored/used, formed through substantial investment, and capable of generating business benefit or competitive advantage — and holds that the defendant's crawler-and-resale scheme, circumventing login and access controls, was unfair competition (¥200,000 + ¥30,000-plus in costs). The brief then takes up the doctrinal question: does Article 13's 'lawfully held data' correspond to the 'right to hold data' (数据持有权) in the Data 20 Articles' three-rights framework? The answer is a functional yes — the court is enforcing the holding right's purely defensive content, exactly as Hong Yanqing's analysis predicted AUCL Article 13 would — but not a doctrinal one: it builds a competition-tort interest on investment and lawful sourcing, deliberately sidestepping any claim that data is a typed property right. DCC's case brief for overseas counsel, drawn against the earlier AUCL Article 2 general-clause data cases.
- § 06 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
Data 'Parallel Property Rights' — They Can Confer Status, but Can't Secure Control
Part four — and the synthesis — of Hong Yanqing's (洪延青, 网安寻路人) study notes on China's 'separation of three rights' data-property framework takes up 'parallel property rights' (数据平行财产权): how to allocate rights when the *same* data is held, used, and operated by *multiple* parties at once. Building on Xiong Bingwan and Zhuang Hongshan's 'one-data, multiple-rights' (一数数权) idea — data is non-rivalrous and copyable, so the same right over the same data can sit with several parties without excluding each other — Hong argues parallel property rights are best understood as *default rules* for incomplete-contract, collaborative-production settings: internally, parallel use is presumed; externally, operation is classified by data type (by-products each party may operate alone; purpose-built or fused data needs the others' consent); and parallel holders share a *joint defensive* interest against third parties. But the substance, he shows, falls back on derivative data — and here Xiong, Xu Ke (许可), and Shen Weixing (申卫星), despite different scenarios and tests, all tilt the derivative-data right to the *processor*, leaving the data contributor with contract/compensation/tort/PI remedies rather than ownership of the new product. DCC's read for overseas counsel: parallel property rights cut *attribution* uncertainty (who may use, operate, defend) but not *control* uncertainty (future use, detection, tracing, modelled value, third-party chains, ongoing compliance) — status, not control.