For human rights expert Adrian Zenz, being the target of Chinese intelligence investigations for years is nothing new. However, as revealed recently, the involvement of a European politician recruited by Chinese agents to discredit him represents a new level, he says in an interview with Marcel Grzanna.
Zenz expresses surprise at how easily people can be drawn into such activities. His research on labor camps in Xinjiang has never been politically motivated. To protect his family, he has now installed a security system with cameras at home. Despite the challenges, he intends to continue his work.
After an attempt to acquire parts of critical infrastructure at the Port of Hamburg, the Chinese shipping company Cosco is once again under scrutiny. The union ver.di accuses Cosco of breaking labor agreements by using its own workers instead of local dockworkers to secure cargo.
Cosco argues that using its own personnel is primarily about efficiency and claims not to be bound by a labor agreement. Once again, the actions of the Chinese company become a political issue and could set a precedent for others, such as the Swiss shipping company MSC, which also seeks to invest in the port.
The Chinese Ministry of State Security, according to a joint investigation by several media outlets, has deployed an informant against you to discredit you, and this was done in collaboration with a European politician. Does this surprise you?
After everything that has happened in recent years – all the mud that has been thrown at me from the Chinese side – it doesn’t surprise me. But it is still uncomfortable when you can no longer influence the public image being portrayed of you.
Something always sticks.
I have to admit that I was really naive to believe that this campaign against me would be so easy to see through and that the Chinese would be left standing alone. I am negatively surprised by how many people allow themselves to be influenced by considerations that have nothing to do with the empirical quality on which my work is based.
China accuses you of acting out of far-right hatred against communists.
It is so absurd that I expected everyone to understand it. I was never politically engaged, let alone extremist. I am not even categorically aligned politically. I used to vote for the CDU, and today, I agree with aspects of the Green Party’s foreign policy. It is so far-fetched to defame me as a far-right radical. But some seem to fall for this nonsense.
An agent of the Ministry of State Security (MSS) named Daniel Woo is said to have hired the far-right Flemish former politician Frank Creyelman to dig up scandals about you. Have you ever met either of them?
No. There was never any physical approach, not even through intermediaries. I don’t know them. But, of course, there were regular attempts at contact or phishing online. I had emails examined by experts who concluded that it was the MSS trying to hack me.
Do you live in fear?
Especially at the beginning of my publications, it was a very difficult time. My wife and I didn’t know what was coming our way. We have three children. There were constant overt threats from the Chinese against me. At the height of the campaign, there was a three-hour press conference in Beijing on the topic of Adrian Zenz.
Are you in contact with US authorities?
I am. Their assessment is that it is an indirect threat situation. But the exchange continues. Because even an indirect threat doesn’t feel good. Therefore, we have taken personal measures to protect ourselves. Our house is equipped with surveillance cameras and a security system.
Why do you continue?
Because this is not about me but something historical. China is committing human rights abuses that we can observe and study in real-time. This is unique. Normally, such crimes can only be worked on retroactively.
Is the exposure of Chinese intelligence methods in line with your intentions?
The fact that this approach by the MSS has been exposed can only be beneficial. Hopefully, everyone will understand with what means influence and campaigns are controlled. If a defamatory text about me appears, it happens simultaneously in ten languages and on countless platforms. But we should all be aware that this is not the end of disinformation and influence. China is always learning and investing billions in these campaigns.
Adrian Zenz is a German anthropologist known for his research on reeducation camps in Xinjiang.
In the future, Cosco Shipping in Hamburg will have its smaller container ship secure the cargo with its own seafarers. So far, this has been the task of lashers – special port workers paid according to the tariff. The United Services Union (ver.di) accuses the shipping company of wage violations. As specific as the accusation may be, Cosco is still caught in the crossfire. Because the union’s media-effective attack also targets the Hamburger Hafen und Logistik Aktiengesellschaft (HHLA AG), the Hamburg Senate and the entry of the Swiss shipping company MSC.
Specifically, Cosco intends to have its own seafarers perform the lashing in the future. This includes securing the cargo, a task previously handled by lashers. In Hamburg, about 500 of these port workers work for a total of four companies. HHLA hires them when they need to secure containers somewhere.
Two types of ships can be distinguished. First, the large container ships, which, in the case of Cosco, can load 20,000 TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit) – that is, 20,000 containers with a length of twenty feet. Here, lashers must secure the containers because the crew is too small to perform the work.
However, Ver.di’s accusation is related to Cosco’s “Baltic Shearwater”. It is a so-called feeder ship – a container taxi. It can load about 1,600 TEUs, which it then takes to other ports where the cargo is transferred to a container giant. For example, in the HaminaKotka port in Finland. The “Baltic Shearwater” visits Hamburg every two weeks and is operated by a German subsidiary (Diamond Line).
From Cosco’s perspective, lashing by port workers for feeders is not flexible enough. The ships often have to collect their containers at multiple terminals. Calling in port personnel every time is time-consuming and unnecessary. After all, the seafarers are adequately trained to secure the cargo themselves. Moreover, sometimes, this needs to be done during the journey and would also be done by the crew. In fact, if not common, it is not uncommon for seafarers to secure the cargo on feeders, says André Kretschmar, head of the maritime industry department at ver.di Hamburg. However, the union can only react when it knows about the case – as is the case now with Cosco.
Safety is a central aspect, as Markus Wichmann explains in an interview with Table.Media. He is an inspector at the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) in Hamburg. In Finland, the containers on the feeders are covered with ice for about five months. This is in addition to rain, snow and waves. Every year, there are several deaths because seafarers have to re-secure containers under these conditions during the journey.
“With this announcement, Cosco is violating the collective bargaining agreement in the port and on board. The ship in question has a collective bargaining agreement that clearly stipulates that cargo securing work, for safety reasons, must be carried out by port workers. We strongly condemn that Cosco now wants to deviate from this and demand that the company ensures that the applicable collective bargaining agreements on board are also adhered to,” says Susana Pereira-Ventura of Ver.di.
Cosco claims that this collective bargaining agreement does not exist. In a statement to Table.Media, HHLA also explains, “In principle, shipping companies have the option of handling the lashing of feeder ships in the Port of Hamburg themselves or commissioning HHLA.”
In the Netherlands, the unions have already won a court ruling that lashing must be performed by port workers. Legal efforts in Germany have so far not resulted in any outcome – neither in favor of the unions nor in favor of the shipping companies.
In Hamburg, discussions about the port continue. Initially, there was a dispute over whether Cosco, as a Chinese shipping company, would be allowed to acquire a minority stake in the HHLA Container Terminal Tollerort – and thus, at least, in critical infrastructure. Even Chancellor Olaf Scholz had to intervene in the debate.
Currently, the takeover of 49.9 percent of HHLA by the Swiss shipping company MSC is controversial. “Ver.di fundamentally rejects the sale of HHLA shares and thus the sale of public property to private investors,” the union announced. However, Ver.di praised that many constructive discussions had taken place.
The fact that in this situation Cosco wants to take over lashing itself is seen by the union as a political issue. “Today Cosco, tomorrow MSC?” Kretschmar asks somewhat rhetorically. In an interview with Table.Media, he emphasizes that Cosco is not a particularly aggressive partner. However, it is Ver.di’s task to ensure clarity here to avoid the problem in the future.
Although the specific accusation is against Cosco, the policy is asked to change the legal framework. The Senate could specify in the port regulations that lashing may only be carried out by local port workers. This has not happened so far. The same applies to the use of local tugs. Other ports are much further ahead in this regard. “Now local politics must become active and finally create the legal basis that such social dumping becomes illegal in the Port of Hamburg,” demands Kretschmar. ITF inspector Wichmann also emphasizes the poor role model character and fears that Cosco’s approach could set a precedent.
The number of earthquake victims in Northwest China has increased, according to the state news agency Xinhua. At least 131 people have lost their lives. In the Gansu province, 113 people were found dead by Wednesday morning. 782 were reported injured, according to authorities. In the neighboring Qinghai province, the death toll rose to 21, with 186 injured and 13 missing (as of 4 p.m. on Wednesday).
In the region, more than 207,000 houses were destroyed, affecting over 145,000 people. More than 128,000 relief items, such as tents, blankets, tent lamps and folding beds, have already been delivered. The earthquake-affected area has a “very complex” topography between two plateaus at elevations between 1,800 and 4,300 meters, as reported by state television. Rescue efforts are hindered by a cold wave. Temperatures around the earthquake’s epicenter in Gansu dropped to about minus 15 degrees Celsius on Tuesday evening.
Observers referred to it as the worst earthquake in China since August 2014. Back then, an earthquake in the Yunnan province in the southwest of the country claimed 617 lives. Earthquakes are frequent in Chinese provinces like Gansu, located at the northeastern border of the tectonically active Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The deadliest earthquake in China in recent decades occurred in 2008 when Sichuan was hit by an 8.0 magnitude quake, killing almost 70,000 people. rtr/fpe
Chinese President Xi Jinping has described the close relationship between his country and Russia as a “strategic decision” by both sides. This is based on the “fundamental interests of both peoples,” Xi told Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin during his visit to Beijing on Wednesday, according to state broadcaster CCTV. Both countries should “deepen cooperation in the areas of the economy, trade, energy, connectivity and other fields,” Xi said.
Mishustin’s two-day visit to China comes two months after one of the rare foreign trips by Russian President Vladimir Putin, where he met his Chinese counterpart Xi in Beijing. According to protocols, Mishustin said during a meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Li Qiang on Tuesday that relations between Moscow and Beijing have now reached an “all-time high”. ari
The Beijing Internet Court’s ruling that content generated by artificial intelligence can be covered by copyright has caused a stir in the AI community, not least because it clashes with the stances adopted in other major jurisdictions, including the United States. In fact, that is partly the point: the ruling advances a wider effort in China to surpass the US to become a global leader in AI.
Not everyone views the ruling as all that consequential. Some commentators point out that the Beijing Internet Court is a relatively low-level institution, operating within a legal system where courts are not obligated to follow precedents. But, while technically true, this interpretation misses the point, because it focuses narrowly on Chinese law, as written. In the Chinese legal context, decisions like this one both reflect and shape policy.
In 2017, China’s leaders set the ambitious goal of achieving global AI supremacy by 2030. But the barriers to success have proved substantial – and they continue to multiply. Over the last year or so, the US has made it increasingly difficult for China to acquire the chips it needs to develop advanced AI technologies, such as large language models, that can compete with those coming out of the US. President Joe Biden‘s administration further tightened those regulations in October.
In response to this campaign, China’s government has mobilized a whole-of-society effort to accelerate AI development, channeling vast investment toward the sector and limiting regulatory hurdles. In its Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services – which entered into effect in August – the government urged administrative authorities and courts at all levels to adopt a cautious and tolerant regulatory stance toward AI.
If the Beijing Internet Court’s recent ruling is any indication, the judiciary has taken that guidance to heart. After all, making it possible to copyright some AI-generated content not only directly strengthens the incentive to use AI, but also boosts the commercial value of AI products and services.
Conversely, denying copyrights to AI-generated content could inadvertently encourage deceptive practices, with digital artists being tempted to misrepresent the origins of their creations. By blurring the lines between AI-generated and human-crafted works, this would pose a threat to the future development of AI foundational models, which rely heavily on training with high-quality data sourced from human-generated content.
For the US, the benefits of prohibiting copyright protection for AI-generated content seem to outweigh the risks. The US Copyright Office has refused to recognize such copyrights in three cases, even if the content reflects a substantial human creative or intellectual contribution. In one case, an artist tried over 600 prompts – a considerable investment of effort and creativity – to create an AI-generated image that eventually won an award in an art competition, only to be told that the copyright would not be recognized.
This reluctance is hardly unfounded. While the Beijing Internet Court ruling might align with China’s AI ambitions today, it also opens a Pandora’s box of legal and ethical challenges. For instance, as creators of similar AI artworks dispute copyright infringement, Chinese courts could be burdened by a surge of litigation at a time when Chinese courts must face the contentious issue of whether copyright holders can obtain compensation for the use of their AI-generated works in AI training. This makes a revision of existing copyright laws and doctrines by Chinese courts and the legislature all but inevitable.
Questions about copyrights and AI training are already fueling heated debates in a number of jurisdictions. In the US, artists, writers, and others have launched a raft of lawsuits accusing major AI firms like OpenAI, Meta, and Stability AI of using their copyrighted work to train AI systems without permission. In Europe, the proposed AI Act by the European Parliament requires that companies disclose any copyrighted materials they use for training generative-AI systems – a rule that would make AI firms vulnerable to copyright-infringement suits, while increasing the leverage of copyright-holders in compensation negotiations.
For China, addressing such questions might prove to be particularly complicated. Chinese law permits the free use of copyrighted materials only in very limited circumstances. But with Chinese courts increasingly aligning their rulings with directives from Beijing, it seems likely that, to facilitate the use of copyrighted materials by AI firms, they will soon start taking a laxer approach and approve a growing number of exceptions.
The price, however, could be steep. The adoption of a more lenient approach toward the use of copyrighted materials for AI training – as well as the likely flood of AI-generated content on the Chinese market – may end up discouraging human creativity in the long term.
From the government to the courts, Chinese authorities seem fixated on ensuring that the country can lead on AI. But the consequences of their approach could be profound and far-reaching. It is not inconceivable that this legal trend could lead to social crises such as massive job losses in creative industries and widespread public discontent. For now, however, China can be expected to continue nurturing its AI industry – at all costs.
Angela Huyue Zhang, Global Professor of Law at New York University, is Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Philip K. H. Center for Chinese Law at the University of Hong Kong and the author of the forthcoming High Wire: How China Regulates Big Tech and Governs its Economy (Oxford University Press, 2024).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.
www.project-syndicate.org
The winter jacket from the Mao era, lined with cotton and faux fur, which until recently was exclusively worn by older individuals, is making a comeback among China’s youth this winter. The demand for the fashionably considered obsolete Dà huā ǎo 大花袄 has surged on shopping platforms like Taobao since November. The comfortable house jacket with a floral pattern has even found its way onto China’s runways in various new styles. The Jūn dàyī 军大衣 serves as its male equivalent, a stiff military jacket from northeastern China, recently showcased in public by the film star Andy Lau.
For human rights expert Adrian Zenz, being the target of Chinese intelligence investigations for years is nothing new. However, as revealed recently, the involvement of a European politician recruited by Chinese agents to discredit him represents a new level, he says in an interview with Marcel Grzanna.
Zenz expresses surprise at how easily people can be drawn into such activities. His research on labor camps in Xinjiang has never been politically motivated. To protect his family, he has now installed a security system with cameras at home. Despite the challenges, he intends to continue his work.
After an attempt to acquire parts of critical infrastructure at the Port of Hamburg, the Chinese shipping company Cosco is once again under scrutiny. The union ver.di accuses Cosco of breaking labor agreements by using its own workers instead of local dockworkers to secure cargo.
Cosco argues that using its own personnel is primarily about efficiency and claims not to be bound by a labor agreement. Once again, the actions of the Chinese company become a political issue and could set a precedent for others, such as the Swiss shipping company MSC, which also seeks to invest in the port.
The Chinese Ministry of State Security, according to a joint investigation by several media outlets, has deployed an informant against you to discredit you, and this was done in collaboration with a European politician. Does this surprise you?
After everything that has happened in recent years – all the mud that has been thrown at me from the Chinese side – it doesn’t surprise me. But it is still uncomfortable when you can no longer influence the public image being portrayed of you.
Something always sticks.
I have to admit that I was really naive to believe that this campaign against me would be so easy to see through and that the Chinese would be left standing alone. I am negatively surprised by how many people allow themselves to be influenced by considerations that have nothing to do with the empirical quality on which my work is based.
China accuses you of acting out of far-right hatred against communists.
It is so absurd that I expected everyone to understand it. I was never politically engaged, let alone extremist. I am not even categorically aligned politically. I used to vote for the CDU, and today, I agree with aspects of the Green Party’s foreign policy. It is so far-fetched to defame me as a far-right radical. But some seem to fall for this nonsense.
An agent of the Ministry of State Security (MSS) named Daniel Woo is said to have hired the far-right Flemish former politician Frank Creyelman to dig up scandals about you. Have you ever met either of them?
No. There was never any physical approach, not even through intermediaries. I don’t know them. But, of course, there were regular attempts at contact or phishing online. I had emails examined by experts who concluded that it was the MSS trying to hack me.
Do you live in fear?
Especially at the beginning of my publications, it was a very difficult time. My wife and I didn’t know what was coming our way. We have three children. There were constant overt threats from the Chinese against me. At the height of the campaign, there was a three-hour press conference in Beijing on the topic of Adrian Zenz.
Are you in contact with US authorities?
I am. Their assessment is that it is an indirect threat situation. But the exchange continues. Because even an indirect threat doesn’t feel good. Therefore, we have taken personal measures to protect ourselves. Our house is equipped with surveillance cameras and a security system.
Why do you continue?
Because this is not about me but something historical. China is committing human rights abuses that we can observe and study in real-time. This is unique. Normally, such crimes can only be worked on retroactively.
Is the exposure of Chinese intelligence methods in line with your intentions?
The fact that this approach by the MSS has been exposed can only be beneficial. Hopefully, everyone will understand with what means influence and campaigns are controlled. If a defamatory text about me appears, it happens simultaneously in ten languages and on countless platforms. But we should all be aware that this is not the end of disinformation and influence. China is always learning and investing billions in these campaigns.
Adrian Zenz is a German anthropologist known for his research on reeducation camps in Xinjiang.
In the future, Cosco Shipping in Hamburg will have its smaller container ship secure the cargo with its own seafarers. So far, this has been the task of lashers – special port workers paid according to the tariff. The United Services Union (ver.di) accuses the shipping company of wage violations. As specific as the accusation may be, Cosco is still caught in the crossfire. Because the union’s media-effective attack also targets the Hamburger Hafen und Logistik Aktiengesellschaft (HHLA AG), the Hamburg Senate and the entry of the Swiss shipping company MSC.
Specifically, Cosco intends to have its own seafarers perform the lashing in the future. This includes securing the cargo, a task previously handled by lashers. In Hamburg, about 500 of these port workers work for a total of four companies. HHLA hires them when they need to secure containers somewhere.
Two types of ships can be distinguished. First, the large container ships, which, in the case of Cosco, can load 20,000 TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit) – that is, 20,000 containers with a length of twenty feet. Here, lashers must secure the containers because the crew is too small to perform the work.
However, Ver.di’s accusation is related to Cosco’s “Baltic Shearwater”. It is a so-called feeder ship – a container taxi. It can load about 1,600 TEUs, which it then takes to other ports where the cargo is transferred to a container giant. For example, in the HaminaKotka port in Finland. The “Baltic Shearwater” visits Hamburg every two weeks and is operated by a German subsidiary (Diamond Line).
From Cosco’s perspective, lashing by port workers for feeders is not flexible enough. The ships often have to collect their containers at multiple terminals. Calling in port personnel every time is time-consuming and unnecessary. After all, the seafarers are adequately trained to secure the cargo themselves. Moreover, sometimes, this needs to be done during the journey and would also be done by the crew. In fact, if not common, it is not uncommon for seafarers to secure the cargo on feeders, says André Kretschmar, head of the maritime industry department at ver.di Hamburg. However, the union can only react when it knows about the case – as is the case now with Cosco.
Safety is a central aspect, as Markus Wichmann explains in an interview with Table.Media. He is an inspector at the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) in Hamburg. In Finland, the containers on the feeders are covered with ice for about five months. This is in addition to rain, snow and waves. Every year, there are several deaths because seafarers have to re-secure containers under these conditions during the journey.
“With this announcement, Cosco is violating the collective bargaining agreement in the port and on board. The ship in question has a collective bargaining agreement that clearly stipulates that cargo securing work, for safety reasons, must be carried out by port workers. We strongly condemn that Cosco now wants to deviate from this and demand that the company ensures that the applicable collective bargaining agreements on board are also adhered to,” says Susana Pereira-Ventura of Ver.di.
Cosco claims that this collective bargaining agreement does not exist. In a statement to Table.Media, HHLA also explains, “In principle, shipping companies have the option of handling the lashing of feeder ships in the Port of Hamburg themselves or commissioning HHLA.”
In the Netherlands, the unions have already won a court ruling that lashing must be performed by port workers. Legal efforts in Germany have so far not resulted in any outcome – neither in favor of the unions nor in favor of the shipping companies.
In Hamburg, discussions about the port continue. Initially, there was a dispute over whether Cosco, as a Chinese shipping company, would be allowed to acquire a minority stake in the HHLA Container Terminal Tollerort – and thus, at least, in critical infrastructure. Even Chancellor Olaf Scholz had to intervene in the debate.
Currently, the takeover of 49.9 percent of HHLA by the Swiss shipping company MSC is controversial. “Ver.di fundamentally rejects the sale of HHLA shares and thus the sale of public property to private investors,” the union announced. However, Ver.di praised that many constructive discussions had taken place.
The fact that in this situation Cosco wants to take over lashing itself is seen by the union as a political issue. “Today Cosco, tomorrow MSC?” Kretschmar asks somewhat rhetorically. In an interview with Table.Media, he emphasizes that Cosco is not a particularly aggressive partner. However, it is Ver.di’s task to ensure clarity here to avoid the problem in the future.
Although the specific accusation is against Cosco, the policy is asked to change the legal framework. The Senate could specify in the port regulations that lashing may only be carried out by local port workers. This has not happened so far. The same applies to the use of local tugs. Other ports are much further ahead in this regard. “Now local politics must become active and finally create the legal basis that such social dumping becomes illegal in the Port of Hamburg,” demands Kretschmar. ITF inspector Wichmann also emphasizes the poor role model character and fears that Cosco’s approach could set a precedent.
The number of earthquake victims in Northwest China has increased, according to the state news agency Xinhua. At least 131 people have lost their lives. In the Gansu province, 113 people were found dead by Wednesday morning. 782 were reported injured, according to authorities. In the neighboring Qinghai province, the death toll rose to 21, with 186 injured and 13 missing (as of 4 p.m. on Wednesday).
In the region, more than 207,000 houses were destroyed, affecting over 145,000 people. More than 128,000 relief items, such as tents, blankets, tent lamps and folding beds, have already been delivered. The earthquake-affected area has a “very complex” topography between two plateaus at elevations between 1,800 and 4,300 meters, as reported by state television. Rescue efforts are hindered by a cold wave. Temperatures around the earthquake’s epicenter in Gansu dropped to about minus 15 degrees Celsius on Tuesday evening.
Observers referred to it as the worst earthquake in China since August 2014. Back then, an earthquake in the Yunnan province in the southwest of the country claimed 617 lives. Earthquakes are frequent in Chinese provinces like Gansu, located at the northeastern border of the tectonically active Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The deadliest earthquake in China in recent decades occurred in 2008 when Sichuan was hit by an 8.0 magnitude quake, killing almost 70,000 people. rtr/fpe
Chinese President Xi Jinping has described the close relationship between his country and Russia as a “strategic decision” by both sides. This is based on the “fundamental interests of both peoples,” Xi told Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin during his visit to Beijing on Wednesday, according to state broadcaster CCTV. Both countries should “deepen cooperation in the areas of the economy, trade, energy, connectivity and other fields,” Xi said.
Mishustin’s two-day visit to China comes two months after one of the rare foreign trips by Russian President Vladimir Putin, where he met his Chinese counterpart Xi in Beijing. According to protocols, Mishustin said during a meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Li Qiang on Tuesday that relations between Moscow and Beijing have now reached an “all-time high”. ari
The Beijing Internet Court’s ruling that content generated by artificial intelligence can be covered by copyright has caused a stir in the AI community, not least because it clashes with the stances adopted in other major jurisdictions, including the United States. In fact, that is partly the point: the ruling advances a wider effort in China to surpass the US to become a global leader in AI.
Not everyone views the ruling as all that consequential. Some commentators point out that the Beijing Internet Court is a relatively low-level institution, operating within a legal system where courts are not obligated to follow precedents. But, while technically true, this interpretation misses the point, because it focuses narrowly on Chinese law, as written. In the Chinese legal context, decisions like this one both reflect and shape policy.
In 2017, China’s leaders set the ambitious goal of achieving global AI supremacy by 2030. But the barriers to success have proved substantial – and they continue to multiply. Over the last year or so, the US has made it increasingly difficult for China to acquire the chips it needs to develop advanced AI technologies, such as large language models, that can compete with those coming out of the US. President Joe Biden‘s administration further tightened those regulations in October.
In response to this campaign, China’s government has mobilized a whole-of-society effort to accelerate AI development, channeling vast investment toward the sector and limiting regulatory hurdles. In its Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services – which entered into effect in August – the government urged administrative authorities and courts at all levels to adopt a cautious and tolerant regulatory stance toward AI.
If the Beijing Internet Court’s recent ruling is any indication, the judiciary has taken that guidance to heart. After all, making it possible to copyright some AI-generated content not only directly strengthens the incentive to use AI, but also boosts the commercial value of AI products and services.
Conversely, denying copyrights to AI-generated content could inadvertently encourage deceptive practices, with digital artists being tempted to misrepresent the origins of their creations. By blurring the lines between AI-generated and human-crafted works, this would pose a threat to the future development of AI foundational models, which rely heavily on training with high-quality data sourced from human-generated content.
For the US, the benefits of prohibiting copyright protection for AI-generated content seem to outweigh the risks. The US Copyright Office has refused to recognize such copyrights in three cases, even if the content reflects a substantial human creative or intellectual contribution. In one case, an artist tried over 600 prompts – a considerable investment of effort and creativity – to create an AI-generated image that eventually won an award in an art competition, only to be told that the copyright would not be recognized.
This reluctance is hardly unfounded. While the Beijing Internet Court ruling might align with China’s AI ambitions today, it also opens a Pandora’s box of legal and ethical challenges. For instance, as creators of similar AI artworks dispute copyright infringement, Chinese courts could be burdened by a surge of litigation at a time when Chinese courts must face the contentious issue of whether copyright holders can obtain compensation for the use of their AI-generated works in AI training. This makes a revision of existing copyright laws and doctrines by Chinese courts and the legislature all but inevitable.
Questions about copyrights and AI training are already fueling heated debates in a number of jurisdictions. In the US, artists, writers, and others have launched a raft of lawsuits accusing major AI firms like OpenAI, Meta, and Stability AI of using their copyrighted work to train AI systems without permission. In Europe, the proposed AI Act by the European Parliament requires that companies disclose any copyrighted materials they use for training generative-AI systems – a rule that would make AI firms vulnerable to copyright-infringement suits, while increasing the leverage of copyright-holders in compensation negotiations.
For China, addressing such questions might prove to be particularly complicated. Chinese law permits the free use of copyrighted materials only in very limited circumstances. But with Chinese courts increasingly aligning their rulings with directives from Beijing, it seems likely that, to facilitate the use of copyrighted materials by AI firms, they will soon start taking a laxer approach and approve a growing number of exceptions.
The price, however, could be steep. The adoption of a more lenient approach toward the use of copyrighted materials for AI training – as well as the likely flood of AI-generated content on the Chinese market – may end up discouraging human creativity in the long term.
From the government to the courts, Chinese authorities seem fixated on ensuring that the country can lead on AI. But the consequences of their approach could be profound and far-reaching. It is not inconceivable that this legal trend could lead to social crises such as massive job losses in creative industries and widespread public discontent. For now, however, China can be expected to continue nurturing its AI industry – at all costs.
Angela Huyue Zhang, Global Professor of Law at New York University, is Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Philip K. H. Center for Chinese Law at the University of Hong Kong and the author of the forthcoming High Wire: How China Regulates Big Tech and Governs its Economy (Oxford University Press, 2024).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.
www.project-syndicate.org
The winter jacket from the Mao era, lined with cotton and faux fur, which until recently was exclusively worn by older individuals, is making a comeback among China’s youth this winter. The demand for the fashionably considered obsolete Dà huā ǎo 大花袄 has surged on shopping platforms like Taobao since November. The comfortable house jacket with a floral pattern has even found its way onto China’s runways in various new styles. The Jūn dàyī 军大衣 serves as its male equivalent, a stiff military jacket from northeastern China, recently showcased in public by the film star Andy Lau.
