Filed under data-property-rights
Every brief tagged "data-property-rights".
- § 19 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
Who Is the 'Data Processor' Under the Three-Rights Framework — NDA's Farm-Equipment Hypothetical
NDA's official 政策解读 on the threshold question that every three-rights allocation depends on: who is the 'data processor' and who is the 'information subject'? NDA uses a farm-equipment hypothetical — a farm rents tractor, irrigation, and fertilizer equipment from three different vendors; cultivation data is captured in the process — to work through who collects, who decides processing purposes, and how the property-rights regime balances the data-processor's commercial interest against the information-subject's rights to access copies of relevant data. The piece sketches the basic information-subject vs. data-processor dichotomy that anchors the entire downstream data-element regime, and surfaces the access-to-data right (data portability for commercial entities) that overseas counsel often miss.
- § 20 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
Cloud, BPO, and Other Entrusted-Processing Arrangements: Why the Processor Doesn't Get the Rights
NDA's official 政策解读 on a tactically critical sub-question of the three-rights framework: when a data processor outsources storage, processing, or analysis to a third-party service provider — typical cloud, BPO, or e-government-system arrangements — does the entrusted party acquire any of the three property rights? NDA's clear answer: no. The entrusted processor (受托人) is not a 'data processor' in the property-rights sense — it merely executes instructions on behalf of the data processor (the principal). It cannot use the data outside the entrusted scope, cannot transfer the data into market circulation, and cannot apply the data to its own debt repayment or bankruptcy distribution. The line is anchored to the Civil Code's contract-of-mandate rules — a long-standing piece of Chinese commercial law extended cleanly into the data-element regime.
- § 21 · PUBLIC-DATA
Public Data Under Franchise and Concession Operations: Who Owns It and Can It Be Traded?
Infrastructure and public-utility operators in China — gas networks, urban parking, water systems, and similar franchise/concession (特许经营) businesses — generate data that falls within the statutory definition of 'public data.' That classification creates compliance questions that standard enterprise-data analysis does not answer: does a franchise agreement confer the right to process and sell that data, and under what conditions? Two Shenzhen Data Exchange compliance officers work through the asset-ownership and revenue-attribution routes for establishing data-use authority, flag the asset-transfer risk that attaches to API and dataset licensing, and explain why franchise-generated public data should not be silently assimilated into the authorised-operation (授权运营) model now being piloted across Chinese cities. The operational takeaway: amend legacy concession agreements to address data rights explicitly, and build the data-rights clause into every new franchise contract before signing.
- § 22 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
Inside the Reviewer's Mind — A Compliance Guide to Data Property-Rights Registration at Shenzhen Data Exchange
China's data property-rights registration (数据产权登记) regime has no single national rulebook yet, which makes the reviewer's checklist at the registrar level the operational baseline for any applicant. This brief summarises a practitioner guide by two compliance managers at Shenzhen Data Exchange (深圳数据交易所), explaining what registration reviewers actually scrutinise: whether the subject-matter falls within the platform's accepted scope; whether the applicant can substantiate entitlement to one or more of the three data-property rights (持有权 / 使用权 / 经营权); and whether the submitted materials are internally consistent and complete. The guide also clarifies common misconceptions about the 'three rights' structure — including why 'data ownership' is not a legally recognised concept and why holding-right does not automatically confer use-right or operating-right. For overseas counsel advising clients on data-asset registration, this is the clearest available account of how the first-mover registrar reads applications.
- § 23 · DERIVATIVE-DATA
Derivative Data Products and Public Data Opening — Legal Challenges and Compliance Points
As China opens public-sector datasets for commercial exploitation, companies building derivative data products (衍生数据产品) face a layered compliance problem: the definition of 'derivative data' in the National Data Administration's 2025 glossary is deliberately high-threshold (substantial transformation, significant value uplift); provincial rules on automated collection, source-labelling, and sensitive-data assessment are inconsistent; and a three-way collision between the open-data rules, third-party platform terms, and the 2025 Anti-Unfair Competition Law amendments has no clean resolution. Wang Yi and Yu Hao (both DEXCO-certified partners at Global Law Office Shenzhen) map the definitional landscape, five categories of operational red lines, and four protective strategies — including the new data-specific provision in the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law — for practitioners building or advising on derivative-data businesses.
- § 24 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
From Copyright to Data Property: The Three-Layer Compliance Test for Registering Employee-Created Data in China
China's data property-rights registration regime treats copyright and data property (数据产权) as separate legal categories — a distinction that catches many applicants off guard when employee-created works are involved. This brief summarises a practitioner analysis by two Shenzhen Data Exchange compliance officers, who explain the three-layer 'penetrating review' (穿透审核) logic that registrars actually apply: lawful acquisition (合法获取), factual control (事实持有), and defined scope of use (使用范围). For overseas counsel advising clients that hold data generated by employees — including code, engineering drawings, maps, and other special categories of work-made-for-hire under China's Copyright Law — the key operational takeaway is that a copyright certificate alone is insufficient. Registration of all three data property rights (holding right, use right, operating right) requires distinct evidence chains for each, and the employment contract is the starting document, not the copyright certificate.