G.E.M.’s Legal Battle: Reclaiming Her Music and Identity in China

The message, when it arrived on June 18, 2025, was as public as it was brutal. G.E.M., the Hong Kong-born singer-songwriter who had conquered the Mandopop world with her powerhouse vocals and prolific songwriting, had just released I AM GLORIA, a deeply personal album of re-recorded versions of her greatest hits. For her millions of fans, it was a triumphant act of reclamation. For her former record label, Hummingbird Music, it was an act of war.

Within days of the album’s release, Hummingbird issued a stark public ultimatum. They declared the re-recordings a flagrant infringement of their copyrights and demanded that all music streaming platforms globally remove the album within 48 hours. Failure to comply, the statement warned, would result in immediate legal action against both the platforms and G.E.M. herself.¹

G.E.M.’s response was equally swift and defiant. “After chatting with my legal team, we all just shrugged and smiled helplessly,” she wrote on her social media. “I don’t really know what else I need to say… the legal basis for my re-recordings is already incredibly solid”.¹ The battle lines, drawn years ago, were now etched in stone.

This public clash was the explosive culmination of a six-year legal saga that has captivated China’s entertainment world. It pits a beloved artist, now an independent powerhouse, against the small, boutique label that discovered her as a teenager and guided her to superstardom.¹ The dispute is a labyrinth of lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, of allegations of financial misconduct and emotional manipulation, and a bitter fight over the ownership of not just over 100 songs, but of the artist’s very name.

How did a seemingly perfect mentor-protégé relationship, the kind that forms the bedrock of music industry lore, disintegrate into a multi-million dollar legal war? And in a global music landscape where artists like America’s own Taylor Swift are fighting to reclaim control over their life’s work, what does G.E.M.’s unique and complex struggle tell us about the price of fame, the nature of creative ownership, and the very soul of the music industry in modern China?

Chapter 1: The Hummingbird’s Cage: A Star is Born, A Contract is Signed

The story begins, as many do, with a discovery. In 2006, a 15-year-old high school student named Deng Shiying (邓诗颖) entered a school singing competition. In the audience was Zhang Dan, a music producer and co-founder of a new Hong Kong-based independent label, Hummingbird Music. He was struck by her talent—a powerful, mature voice paired with the rare distinction of performing her own original composition.⁵ He saw a star, and soon after, the young Deng Shiying, now rechristened with the stage name G.E.M. (an acronym for “Get Everybody Moving”), signed her first professional contract.

This initial contract, however, would become the foundational crack that would, over a decade later, shatter the entire relationship. The circumstances of its signing are central to G.E.M.’s later claims of misrepresentation. She was a minor, just 15 years old, meaning her mother had to negotiate and co-sign the agreement.¹ According to G.E.M., her mother was not fluent in English, yet the contract that would define her daughter’s career for the next thirteen years was written entirely in English.¹ Years later, G.E.M. would state that they signed based on trust, believing the verbal explanations which, she alleges, assured them that the copyright to the songs she wrote would ultimately belong to her.¹ The written reality, she would discover much later, was starkly different.

The agreement was a classic example of what is known in the Chinese entertainment industry as a “quányuē” (全约), or an “all-in” or “360-degree” contract.⁹ This model, common throughout Asia, goes far beyond a simple recording deal. It typically grants the agency sweeping control over every facet of an artist’s career: management, music publishing, touring, endorsements, public relations, and, most critically, all intellectual property created during the contract period. For a young, unknown artist desperate for a shot, the negotiating power is virtually non-existent. The contract becomes less a partnership agreement and more a deed of ownership, with the artist positioned not as a partner, but as the primary asset. The use of an English-only contract with a minor and her non-fluent mother, whether a deliberate tactic or a careless oversight, exemplifies the profound power imbalance at play from the very beginning.

Under Hummingbird’s guidance, G.E.M.’s career took flight. She became a sensation in the Cantonese-speaking world of Hong Kong. But the true turning point came in 2014. Her appearance on the mainland Chinese reality competition I Am a Singer (我是歌手) was a cultural phenomenon.⁵ Her stunning vocal performances introduced her to an audience of hundreds of millions, transforming her overnight from a Hong Kong star into a pan-Chinese megastar. Her commercial value skyrocketed, and with it, the value of the assets—her songs, her image, her name—that were controlled by Hummingbird Music.

---

Timeline of the G.E.M. vs. Hummingbird Music Dispute

Date	Event	Source(s)
2006	15-year-old G.E.M. is discovered by Zhang Dan and signs with Hummingbird Music.	6
2008	G.E.M. officially debuts in Hong Kong.	5
2014	G.E.M. achieves massive fame in Mainland China via I Am a Singer. Hummingbird Music registers “邓紫棋” and “G.E.M.” as trademarks.	1
Mar 7, 2019	G.E.M. publicly announces termination of her contract, alleging “serious breach of contract” and “misrepresentation.”	5
Mar 8, 2019	Hummingbird Music denies all allegations, insisting the contract is valid until 2022.	5
Mar 28, 2019	Hummingbird Music sues G.E.M. for 120 million HKD in damages.	5
Apr 19, 2019	G.E.M. establishes her own personal studio, G-Nation Ltd., signaling her independence.	5
2020	G.E.M. releases the song “Full Stop” (句号), a musical manifesto about her split from Hummingbird.	4
Jan 2024	Hummingbird Music issues a public copyright declaration, asserting ownership over 103 of G.E.M.’s songs and forbidding unauthorized use.	11
Jun 12, 2025	G.E.M. releases her re-recorded album I AM GLORIA and a public letter detailing her six-year legal battle.	1
Jun 18, 2025	Hummingbird Music issues a 48-hour takedown notice for I AM GLORIA, accusing G.E.M. of copyright infringement. G.E.M. publicly refuses.	1

---

Chapter 2: Drawing a “Full Stop”: The Anatomy of a Breakup

For years, the partnership appeared fruitful. But behind the scenes, tensions were mounting. On March 7, 2019, the dam broke. G.E.M. posted a long letter to her social media accounts, announcing her immediate termination of her 13-year relationship with Hummingbird Music. She accused the company of “serious breach of contract” and “misrepresentation,” stating that the trust between them had completely eroded.⁴

Hummingbird’s rebuttal was swift and uncompromising. The company denied any wrongdoing, insisted her contract remained legally valid until its planned expiration in 2022, and rejected her unilateral termination.⁵ Weeks later, they formalized their position by filing a lawsuit in Hong Kong’s High Court, seeking an astonishing 120 million HKD (approximately 15.3 million USD) in damages for breach of contract.⁵ G.E.M. responded by establishing her own independent studio and filing a countersuit.⁵

As the legal battle unfolded, a particularly chilling detail emerged, sending shockwaves through her fanbase. In 2014, shortly after her explosion in popularity on the mainland, Hummingbird Music had quietly filed applications to register her famous stage name, “邓紫棋” (Dèng Zǐqí), and “G.E.M.” as trademarks across various categories, including education, entertainment, and even jewelry.¹ The trademarks were officially registered in 2015 with a validity lasting until 2025.¹⁵

Hummingbird’s CEO, Zhang Dan, claimed this was a standard defensive measure “to prevent piracy”.¹ However, this justification appears thin. Trademarking a name protects its use on commercial goods and services; it does little to prevent the illegal distribution of music. The move was widely seen as a powerful tool of leverage. By owning the trademark to her very identity, the company created a formidable disincentive for G.E.M. to ever leave. If she walked away, she might have to abandon the name under which she had built a global brand, a name synonymous with her art.

This action represents the ultimate commodification of an artist, transforming her identity into a corporate asset. It highlights a fundamental conflict in the entertainment industry: the line between an artist as a creative partner and an artist as a brand to be owned and controlled. The legal reality in China is complex. An artist’s established stage name, or “yìmíng” (艺名), can be protected under personal “name rights” (姓名权), which are distinct from commercial “trademark rights” (商标权). Legal experts have suggested that because the name “邓紫棋” is so intrinsically linked to her as a person in the public consciousness, she would likely have a strong case to continue using it under the protection of her name rights, regardless of the trademark registration.¹⁶ However, the threat alone created a cloud of uncertainty and a powerful bargaining chip for the company.

In 2020, G.E.M. channeled her frustrations into her music, releasing the song “Jùhào” (句号), which translates to “Full Stop” or “Period.” The lyrics were a direct and unambiguous musical manifesto detailing her side of the story. She sang, “For years you told me, without you, I could do nothing / You said I was a commodity… I am not a product in your hands / Without you, I can still go on, and I will flourish even more”.⁴ The song was more than a hit; it was her declaration of independence, framing the entire dispute not merely as a contractual disagreement, but as a profound struggle for personal dignity and artistic freedom.

Chapter 3: The Battle for the Back Catalog: A Masterclass in Copyright Warfare

At the heart of this protracted war lies the control of G.E.M.’s most valuable asset: her music. The dispute centers on 103 songs created during her time with Hummingbird, a catalog that includes her most iconic hits like “Bubble” (泡沫), “Light Years Away” (光年之外), and “A.I.N.Y.”.¹ To understand the battle, one must first understand the two distinct copyrights inherent in every recorded song—a concept that became mainstream knowledge in the U.S. through the Taylor Swift saga.

First is the Composition Copyright, known in China as “cíqǔ zhùzuòquán” (词曲著作权). This is the right to the song’s fundamental elements: the lyrics and the melody. It is the intellectual property of the songwriter. G.E.M., a prolific songwriter who penned the vast majority of her own hits, alleges she was misled into signing away these rights in her initial contract.⁴

Second is the Master Recording Copyright, or “lùyīn zhìzuòzhě quán” (录音制作者权). This is the copyright to a specific sound recording of a song. The record label typically finances and owns the “masters.” Hummingbird claims exclusive ownership of the original master recordings of G.E.M.’s early work, giving them control over who can copy, distribute, or sell those specific versions.⁴

The financial stakes are immense. In a stunning revelation accompanying the release of her re-recorded album, G.E.M. claimed that for over six years—since the dispute began in 2019—she has not received a single cent in royalties from her old songs, despite their enduring popularity and millions of streams.¹ “That’s right,” she wrote, “six years of royalties, not one penny”.¹ This claim provides a clear, tangible motive for her fight to reclaim her work.

Faced with losing control over her creative legacy, G.E.M. and her new legal team devised a sophisticated, two-pronged counter-offensive to legally justify re-recording her catalog. It is a brilliant piece of legal strategy that navigates the complex and distinct legal systems of Hong Kong and Mainland China.

1. The Hong Kong Gambit (CASH): The first pillar of her defense rests on a decision she made as a teenager. At age 14, before she was even a professional, G.E.M. joined the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), a collective rights management organization similar to ASCAP or BMI in the United States.⁴ Her legal argument is that by joining CASH, she assigned the rights to publicly perform, broadcast, and transmit her compositions over networks to the society for administration. Therefore, these specific rights, she contends, were never hers to give to Hummingbird in the first place; they belonged to CASH. This interpretation would give her a legal pathway, through CASH, to license her own compositions to herself for the creation of new recordings.⁴

2. The Mainland Maneuver (Statutory License): The second pillar was unearthed when her team, now including experts in Mainland Chinese law, focused on Article 42 of China’s Copyright Law. This provision contains a “statutory license” (or compulsory license) clause. It states that once a musical work has been legally recorded and released, another party can create a new recording of that same work without needing direct permission from the copyright holder, as long as they pay the statutory royalty rate. Crucially, this applies only if the copyright holder did not explicitly declare upon the first publication that such use is prohibited.¹¹ G.E.M. claims to have notarized evidence proving that, with the exception of two specific albums, her entire early catalog was released without this prohibitive declaration.¹ This, her team argues, gives her a clear legal right under mainland law to re-record her own songs.

This dual strategy is a masterful legal chess match played across borders. It is not a simple contract dispute but a sophisticated, cross-jurisdictional intellectual property war. By identifying and leveraging distinct legal mechanisms in both Hong Kong’s common law tradition and Mainland China’s civil law system, G.E.M. has constructed a formidable and innovative defense, demonstrating a resolve and strategic acumen that elevates this conflict far beyond a typical artist-label spat.

Chapter 4: Taylor’s Version, with Chinese Characteristics

For any American following G.E.M.’s story, the parallels to Taylor Swift’s highly publicized battle to reclaim her music are impossible to ignore. Both artists signed their first record deals as teenagers (at age 15), effectively handing over the master recordings of their formative work to a record label.¹ Both expressed deep emotional distress at losing control of their creative legacy. And, most significantly, both ultimately chose the same powerful strategy to fight back: re-recording their entire back catalogs, album by album, to create new master recordings that they would own and control outright.²⁰

However, to simply label G.E.M.’s fight as a “Taylor Swift moment” is to miss the crucial and fascinating differences that illuminate the unique landscape of the Chinese music industry. While the goal is the same, the battlefield and the weapons are distinctly different.

First is the nature of the antagonist. Taylor Swift’s fight was against Scooter Braun, a music industry mogul who acquired her former label, Big Machine Records, in a $330 million deal.²² Swift successfully framed him as a hostile outsider, an “incessant, manipulative bully” who had purchased her life’s work without her consent.²⁰ This created a clear, almost cinematic hero-versus-villain narrative. G.E.M.’s conflict is far more intimate and complex. Her adversary is Zhang Dan, her original mentor, the man who discovered her and built her career from the ground up.⁷ This is not a corporate takeover; it’s the painful and bitter breakdown of a creative family, a story of a protégé turning against her mentor.

Second is the legal basis of the fight. Swift’s ability to re-record was largely contractual. Her agreement with Big Machine contained standard U.S. industry clauses that stipulated when she was legally allowed to begin creating new versions of her old songs. Her fight was a matter of waiting out the clock. G.E.M.’s fight is far more foundational. She is not simply waiting for a restriction to expire; she is actively challenging the validity and scope of the original contract itself, using the innovative, cross-jurisdictional legal arguments rooted in Hong Kong’s collective rights societies and Mainland China’s statutory licensing laws.¹¹

Finally, the trademarking of G.E.M.’s name adds a layer of conflict completely absent from Swift’s case. The idea that an artist could lose the right to use their own famous name is a particularly potent threat, one that speaks to a potentially more controlling and all-encompassing industry dynamic. It moves the conflict beyond intellectual property and into the realm of personal identity.

These distinctions are not minor; they are fundamental. They show how a similar problem—an artist’s lack of ownership—can manifest and be fought in profoundly different ways depending on the legal, cultural, and personal context.

G.E.M. vs. Taylor Swift: A Tale of Two Re-recording Sagas

Factor	G.E.M.	Taylor Swift
Artist	G.E.M.	Taylor Swift
Age at Initial Signing	15	15
Disputed Assets	Master Recordings, Composition Copyrights, Stage Name Trademark	Master Recordings
Primary Antagonist	Original Mentor/Manager (Zhang Dan)	Third-Party Acquirer (Scooter Braun)
Core Legal Strategy	Challenging contract validity via cross-border law (CASH, Statutory License)	Fulfilling contractual re-recording time restrictions
Broader Industry Impact	Potential to set precedent on “all-in contracts” and artist rights in China	Sparked global conversation on master ownership and artist equity in the U.S.

Chapter 5: The Artist as Asset: A Look Inside China’s Entertainment Machine

G.E.M.’s struggle is not an isolated incident. Rather, it is a high-profile symptom of systemic issues embedded within the machinery of the Chinese entertainment industry. Her case throws a harsh spotlight on the “all-in contract” model, where agencies often function as all-powerful gatekeepers, demanding near-total control over every aspect of a young artist’s career and, in some cases, their personal life.⁹

This system fosters a mindset that G.E.M. so powerfully articulated in her song “Full Stop”: the artist as a commodity.⁴ In the hyper-commercialized, fast-paced world of Chinese pop culture, talent is often viewed as a raw material to be processed, packaged, and marketed for maximum profit.²⁵ The relationship is less about nurturing creativity and more about managing an investment. The agency invests resources—training, production, promotion—and in return, it expects to own the resulting product, which is often the artist themselves.

The core belief underpinning this model is that the agency is indispensable. The narrative pushed by companies like Hummingbird is that the artist, no matter how talented, is nothing without the company’s infrastructure, strategy, and connections. G.E.M.’s career since her split in 2019 serves as a direct and resounding rebuttal to this entire premise.

By any measure, her success as an independent artist has been staggering. Freed from her old label, she established her own studio and embarked on a period of explosive creative and commercial growth.⁵ In 2019, she released the album

摩天动物园 (City Zoo), a critically acclaimed work that earned her the prestigious Jury Award at Taiwan’s Golden Melody Awards, the highest honor in Mandopop.⁶ In 2022, she released

启示录 (Revelation), an ambitious project that presented the entire album as a 14-episode musical series, a first for the Chinese music industry.⁶ She even expanded her global reach by releasing a Spanish-language version of the album,

Revelación.⁶

Her commercial dominance has been equally impressive. She has continued to shatter records, becoming the first Chinese female singer to have five separate music videos surpass 100 million views on YouTube.⁶ Her 2024 concert tour was a blockbuster, reportedly generating over 2.5 billion RMB (approximately 345 million USD) in ticket sales and playing to over 3 million people, making her the top-grossing touring artist in China for the year.⁶

This flourishing is more than just a success story; it is a powerful counter-narrative. It proves that the artist, not the company, is the true engine of value. By not only surviving but thriving on her own terms, G.E.M. has demolished the argument that she was merely a “product” of Hummingbird’s making. Her journey sends a potent message to other artists trapped in similar arrangements: independence is not only possible, but it can also be the catalyst for even greater artistic and commercial achievement. She has transformed herself from a perceived victim of an exploitative system into a trailblazing pioneer.

Conclusion: A New Verse in Artist Rights

The final chapter of G.E.M.’s battle for her music has yet to be written. The legal dispute over her re-recordings is ongoing, and the courts have not yet delivered a final verdict.³ The 48-hour ultimatum from Hummingbird Music in June 2025 was a bold move, but as of now, G.E.M.’s re-recorded album,

I AM GLORIA, remains available on streaming platforms, a quiet testament to her refusal to back down.

The outcome of this case, whenever it arrives, will undoubtedly set a monumental precedent for artist-agency relationships and copyright law in China. A ruling in Hummingbird’s favor could reinforce the immense power of the “all-in contract,” potentially chilling other artists’ attempts to gain independence. Conversely, a victory for G.E.M. could empower a new generation of creators to demand fairer terms, greater transparency, and more control over the art they create. It could force a systemic re-evaluation of contracts that, as G.E.M.’s story shows, can be signed under conditions of profound inequality.

Ultimately, G.E.M.’s fight is a story with global resonance. While it echoes the journey of Taylor Swift, it is a battle uniquely shaped by the complexities of Chinese law, the dynamics of its entertainment industry, and the personal history between a star and her mentor. It is a landmark case that represents more than just a financial dispute; it is a fight for artistic self-determination. What we are witnessing is a pivotal moment, a “Taylor’s Version, with Chinese Characteristics,” that has the potential to redefine what it means to be an artist, an owner, and an individual in the world’s most dynamic and powerful new music market. The final note has not yet been played, but the entire industry is listening.

Works cited

1. 邓紫棋，刚刚回应：不会下架歌曲！此前蜂鸟音乐严正声明，要求其 …, accessed June 19, 2025, https://cd.nbd.com.cn/articles/2025-06-18/3912666.html
2. 蜂鸟音乐称邓紫棋方侵权，要求下架重制版歌曲, accessed June 19, 2025, https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s68525319e4b0bd64e2dfc404.html
3. 歌手邓紫棋与蜂鸟音乐纠纷还没大结局，蜂鸟发文要求邓紫棋下架重录歌曲 – 扬子晚报, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.yzwb.net/news/wy/202506/t20250618_223605.html
4. 蜂鸟音乐称邓紫棋侵权，要求48小时内全网下架涉事歌曲 – 21财经, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.21jingji.com/article/20250618/herald/699992c021d3b2ea9000c3a5b79517e7.html
5. 邓紫棋前东家：拥有其103首歌的版权，禁止翻唱 – 读特, accessed June 19, 2025, https://m.dutenews.com/n/article/7950008
6. 邓紫棋- 维基百科，自由的百科全书, accessed June 19, 2025, https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%84%A7%E7%B4%AB%E6%A3%8B
7. 揭秘邓紫棋经纪人其父亲曾为澳门赌王服务, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.chinanews.com/m/yl/2015/04-08/7192712.shtml
8. 法眼｜邓紫棋重录维权：音乐行业版权乱象下，法律该如何破障？ – 大众新闻, accessed June 19, 2025, https://m.dzplus.dzng.com/share/general/0/NEWS2472870BMRFXNRCPDPFR
9. 【中豪研究】艺人全约经纪合同审核要点, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.zhhlaw.com/article/detail/137
10. 中国音乐生态圈的现状问题与产业发展研究 – 中国法学网, accessed June 19, 2025, http://iolaw.cssn.cn/fxyjdt/201607/t20160701_4642478.shtml
11. 邓紫棋重制版歌曲被指侵权，蜂鸟音乐要求全网下架 – 证券时报, accessed June 19, 2025, http://www.stcn.com/article/detail/2103575.html
12. 蜂鸟音乐- 维基百科，自由的百科全书, accessed June 19, 2025, https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E8%9C%82%E9%B3%A5%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82
13. 向鄧紫棋巨額索償蜂鳥創始人張丹︰深感遺憾 – LINE TODAY, accessed June 19, 2025, https://today.line.me/hk/v3/article/70an7l
14. 邓紫棋被注册成商标，前东家：未经许可禁止翻唱！ – 新闻, accessed June 19, 2025, https://news.ycwb.com/2024-01/17/content_52447890.htm
15. 邓紫棋与蜂鸟音乐就艺名再起硝烟_中国经济网——国家经济门户, accessed June 19, 2025, http://www.ce.cn/culture/gd/201903/14/t20190314_31678461.shtml
16. 与经纪公司解约，邓紫棋不能叫“邓紫棋”了？ – 上观, accessed June 19, 2025, https://web.shobserver.com/wx/detail.do?id=138938
17. 名字被前公司注册，邓紫棋还能叫“邓紫棋”吗？ – 知识产权- 人民网, accessed June 19, 2025, http://ip.people.com.cn/n1/2019/0314/c179663-30975916.html
18. 与商标不同，值得思考的问题，艺名到底归谁？ – 康信知识产权, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.kangxin.com/html/1/173/174/355/9447.html
19. 6年0版税，邓紫棋如何“重生”？ – 知产力, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.zhichanli.com/p/1463595708
20. 泰勒·斯威夫特作品母带争议- 维基百科，自由的百科全书, accessed June 19, 2025, https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E6%B3%B0%E5%8B%92%C2%B7%E6%96%AF%E5%A8%81%E5%A4%AB%E7%89%B9%E4%BD%9C%E5%93%81%E6%AF%8D%E5%B8%A6%E4%BA%89%E8%AE%AE
21. 《Taylor Swift vs Scooter Braun: Bad Blood》兩個視角呈現史上最大樂壇版權之爭 流行天后係咪啱晒？ 紀錄片｜Now 節目推介｜HBO, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.nowtv.now.com/blog/ep31-taylor-swift-vs-scooter-braun-bad-blood
22. Taylor Swift masters dispute – Wikipedia, accessed June 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute
23. 囤IP已过时经纪公司囤新人艺考生未读书先签约 – 中国经济网, accessed June 19, 2025, http://www.ce.cn/culture/gd/201802/13/t20180213_28174303.shtml
24. 邓紫棋被指侵权！蜂鸟音乐要求其48小时内删除重录歌曲 – 新湖南, accessed June 19, 2025, https://m.voc.com.cn/xhn/news/202506/29729077.html
25. 二人转研究专家田子馥：商品化会毁了二人转艺术 – 中国非物质文化遗产网, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.ihchina.cn/luntan_details/8254.html
26. 新视野丨治理“饭圈”乱象须多管齐下-中央纪委网站, accessed June 19, 2025, http://m.ccdi.gov.cn/content/72/1c/81908.html
27. 華語天后G.E.M. 鄧紫棋與華納音樂合作獨家發行全新專輯, accessed June 19, 2025, https://www.warnermusic.com.tw/blog/posts/%E8%8F%AF%E8%AA%9E%E5%A4%A9%E5%90%8Egem-%E9%84%A7%E7%B4%AB%E6%A3%8B-%E8%88%87%E8%8F%AF%E7%B4%8D%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82%E5%90%88%E4%BD%9C-%E7%8D%A8%E5%AE%B6%E7%99%BC%E8%A1%8C%E5%85%A8%E6%96%B0%E5%B0%88%E8%BC%AF