Siti Khadijah Abdullah Sanek, Irma Kamarudin, Arina Kamarudin
This article examines the evolving relationship between digital assets, intellectual property (IP), and emerging technologies, with a particular focus on legal implications under European Union (EU) law. Innovations such as digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and artificial intelligence (AI) generated works, are reshaping concepts of ownership and intellectual property (IP). The article adopts a threefold methodological approach. To assess the adequacy of current legal frameworks, a systematic review highlights key limitations in applying traditional property law to intangible assets like cryptocurrencies and NFTs. The second element analyses the effects of emerging technologies on IP rights and regulatory compliance through an interdisciplinary synthesis of recent research. Lastly, a comparative legal analysis draws on EU and international case studies to identify regulatory gaps and propose policy responses. The findings suggest that while digital assets promote innovation, their decentralised and intangible nature poses challenges to core legal concepts such as exclusivity, attribution, and enforceability. Despite progress in EU digital regulation, inconsistencies persist across jurisdictions. The article concludes that a more harmonised legal framework supported by clearer definitions, the integration of smart contracts, and effective cross-border dispute mechanisms is necessary to ensure that IP law remains effective in the digital economy.
This paper explores the evolving legal nature of digital collectibles, particularly non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and the systemic challenges they pose to civil law property regimes. Within civil law traditions, the concept of property is bound by codified categories and the principle of numerus clausus, which restricts recognition to a limited set of property forms. Digital collectibles, by contrast, are decentralized, programmable, and technologically mediated, defying conventional classifications such as tangible movables or intangible rights. This disconnect generates uncertainty regarding their ownership, transferability, inheritance, and enforceability under traditional legal frameworks. The analysis addresses how digital assets undermine the foundational assumptions of possession, registration, and state-backed enforcement. Particular attention is given to the problems of inheritance continuity, token fragmentation, cross-border legal conflicts, and the role of private key control in lieu of legal title. Drawing from emerging theoretical debates and comparative jurisprudence, the paper proposes a trajectory of adaptive legal reform that includes doctrinal reinterpretation, statutory innovation, and the development of interoperable legal-technical standards. The study concludes that civil law systems must reconceptualize the legal object and embrace a pluralistic approach to digital property to ensure institutional relevance in the era of algorithmic ownership.
This study aims to demonstrate the role of explicit and implicit will in determining the law applicable to smart contracts. Traditional attribution criteria have become incapable of determining the law of digital contracts. This requires a more effective legal system that is compatible with the nature of this type of digital dispute, ensuring legal security and protecting the legal positions of the parties to the contract. This study was conducted using an analytical approach, analyzing relevant legal texts in national and international laws, in addition to a comparative legal approach to study comparative laws in the Anglo-American and Latin American systems, to demonstrate the role of these systems in establishing rules for smart contract operations through digital platforms. The study revealed that the explicit will is the best traditional solution available in legal systems for determining the law applicable to smart contracts. While implicit intention has diminished the importance of the unified elements of a smart contract across all contracts, rendering it incapable of establishing a method for determining contract law. The virtual and decentralized nature of these contracts has led many legislators to refrain from addressing them, given the difficulty of creating a legal system in light of the infrastructure that requires development to accommodate contractual processes in this type of contract. Legal development in the field of smart contracts and artificial intelligence is necessary through the study of technical aspects by specialists to develop a substantive law that addresses the legal issues that arise when implementing smart contracts similar to electronic contracts. This law also addresses the issue of determining the law applicable to the international nature of this type of contract, or through developing attribution criteria that align with the nature of virtual disputes.
Abstract This paper examines current shortcomings of existing legal principles in addressing the immaterial and a-territorial nature of blockchain technology, which challenges foundational legal concepts such as sovereignty and territoriality. It explores how blockchain’s operational framework disrupts traditional legal discourse, particularly in the realm of Private International Law. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the inadequacies of the lex situs principle when applied to crypto assets and blockchain networks. Established legal categories struggle to accommodate inherently digital assets like Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), which defy territory-based classifications within Private International Law. To address these challenges, the paper proposes integrating Ricœur’s theories on narration as a means of reconciling legal discourse with blockchain technologies. By viewing legal principles through the lens of narrative structures, this approach suggests two complementary solutions: incorporating token ecologies into the existing legal framework or reimagining a token-centric legal order. Methodologically, the argument draws on Ricœur’s concept of triple mimesis, demonstrating how established legal principles can be adapted to the digital landscape through a narrative-driven perspective.
The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has sparked worldwide debates on how copyright law should respond to the challenges it has raised. In Hong Kong (HK), this conversation has taken centre stage in the recently published Consultation Paper on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence.1 With the aim of providing the HK legislator with a complete picture of the global debate, the School of Law at City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK) held an international conference entitled ‘Comparative Perspectives on AI and Copyright Law: Evaluating HK’s Policy Responses in the AI Era’ on 12–13 December 2024. The conference gathered international legal scholars, practitioners and policymakers to examine how copyright law and policy can properly respond to the AI challenges. This special issue, ‘AI and Copyright upgrate’, arises from that conference and presents six selected papers that together illuminate how copyright regimes can be updated for the AI era. Each contribution addresses a distinct facet of the GAI-copyright interface: the overall impact, copyrightability, infringement, intermediary liability, automated copyright enforcement and remuneration and inequality. Together, they offer insights into doctrinal rethinking, policy innovation and the fundamental values at stake. The issue opens with Daryl Lim’s article, which sets an ambitious tone by examining the extractive dynamics of GAI and their impact on core copyright assumptions. Lim deploys a vivid metaphor—Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian (the infamous banana duct-taped to a wall)—to illustrate how GAI’s rise exposes structural inequalities in the creative economy. Lim highlights the extractive practices by which AI developers leverage vast amounts of human-created work without due credit or compensation, thereby amplifying existing power disparities between tech companies and individual creators. Lim argues that these inequities call for a recalibration of copyright law: rather than viewing AI as a neutral tool, the law must recognize and address the imbalance it creates. His contribution sets an equity-focused agenda for copyright reform, suggesting that any legislative responses must account for fairness to human artists and authors in an AI-driven marketplace. By rethinking foundational assumptions, Lim’s piece compellingly frames the normative stakes of AI’s impact on copyright and sets the stage for the more targeted analyses that follow. Following this broad structural critique, Chen Yang’s article turns to the issue of copyrightability of AI-generated content (AIGC). The focus is on HK’s ‘computer-generated work’ (CGW) doctrine under the HK Copyright Ordinance (HKCO), casting a critical eye on its ability to properly cover AIGC. Chen analyses HKCO, which the government asserts already, provides a backbone of copyright protection for AIGCs. Chen challenges this optimistic view by unpacking the doctrine’s limitations and the questionable assumptions behind it. In particular, he questions whether traditional requirements like originality or the so-called ‘necessary arranger’ rule can seamlessly extend to AIGCs by comparing the UK experiences. His paper argues that, without careful reconsideration, simply relying on the existing CGW framework is insufficient. While an overhaul may not be imminent, Chen’s piece underscores the need for a more nuanced approach if HK’s copyright regime is to truly harness AI’s creative opportunities. In his paper, Jiawei Zhang focuses on the much-debated issue of the potential copyright infringement risk of training AI using copyrighted works. He advocates a fundamental shift in regulatory perspective from inputs to outputs in the context of AI and copyright. Zhang argues that current debates fixate too much on the input side—the masses of copyrighted works ingested to train AI models—instead of focusing on the output—the contents that AI systems generate. He argues that an output-oriented approach would better calibrate copyright law to the realities of GAI. By judging AIGC on its own merits (for instance, whether an output unlawfully reproduces copyrighted works), policymakers can move away from abstract concerns over training data and towards concrete criteria for copyright infringement determination. This shift, he suggests, would lead to more balanced outcomes: it preserves incentives for human creativity while still allowing AI technology to flourish under clearer rules. The next article by Taorui Guan and Yang Lin tackles the issue related to the safe-harbour regimes for internet intermediaries. Their paper examines whether the safe-harbour regimes can be upgraded to accommodate the challenges raised by GAI through role-specific obligations. They note that the traditional Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)-style safe harbour—where internet services avoid liability by promptly removing infringing user uploads—does not translate neatly to AI systems, which do not store content in discrete files that can simply be taken down. To resolve this, they envision a reconfigured framework assigning tailored responsibilities to different players in the AI ecosystem. For example, AI model developers, platform providers and end-users would each have defined duties (such as monitoring, transparency or responsiveness to complaints) commensurate with their role in generating or disseminating AI content. This differentiated safe-harbour regime aims to maintain the DMCA’s innovation-friendly spirit while strengthening accountability: it would continue to shield good-faith innovators from crippling liability, but only on the condition that they proactively mitigate copyright risks appropriate to their function. Their contribution thus sketches a blueprint for legal reform that balances the protection of rights with the realities of AI-driven services. Connected to the previous article about intermediaries, Jesse Lu’s article focuses on the issue of platform governance and enforcement, criticizing the emerging trend of automated copyright moderation. He observes that, as platforms increasingly deploy algorithmic tools (like content filters and copyright bots) to police infringement, these systems often operate with minimal transparency or oversight. Lu argues that such ‘black box’ enforcement can erode due process: users may find their content removed or accounts penalized without a clear explanation or meaningful opportunity to appeal. Moreover, vesting quasi-regulatory power in private algorithms, he suggests, creates an accountability gap—one where corporate interests and error-prone AI can trump lawful user activities (eg, parody) with little recourse. To counter this, Lu calls for stronger regulatory checks on automated enforcement, including requirements for transparency in how infringement decisions are made and avenues for users to challenge wrongful removals. His piece underscores that any upgrade of copyright law in the AI era must not unfairly sacrifice individual rights and freedoms; on the contrary, it should impose ‘algorithmic accountability’ so that efficiency in enforcement does not come at the expense of fundamental rights and public interests. His contribution thus injects a note of caution: even as we adapt laws to govern AI, we must also govern the use of AI in law enforcement itself, keeping fundamental rights and values in sight. Rounding out the special issue, Rostam Neuwirth offers a provocative reframing of the entire AI-and-IP debate by shifting our focus to the overarching issue of global inequality. He argues that current discussions about AI and copyright—from questions of AI authorship to liability for AI-induced infringement—are missing the forest for the trees. The more pressing concern, in Neuwirth’s view, is that GAI is contributing to a widening global gap between those who control technology and the creative labour force that fuels it.2 Interestingly, but not surprisingly, his view echoes Lim’s from a different angle. He calls for rediscovering IP law’s original purpose of rewarding creators: rather than merely tweaking doctrines at the margins, the law should be reoriented to ensure that human creativity is justly compensated when AI systems become increasingly dominant. This could entail new legal mechanisms or reforms that guarantee authors a share in the value derived from AI’s use of their works, thereby preventing what he describes as the ‘plenty’ of AI’s output from making human creators ‘poor’. Neuwirth’s contribution, broad in scope and principle, ties together the theme of this special issue by reminding us that the ultimate goal of any AI-related copyright upgrade should focus on building a more equitable creative ecosystem. Together, these six articles demonstrate the multi-dimensional effort required to ‘upgrade’ copyright for the AI era. They range from rethinking fundamental doctrines (authorship and originality), to proposing new legislative and regulatory frameworks (for copyright infringement and for intermediary liability), to cautioning against unintended consequences of enforcement technologies and finally to re-centring the discussion on fairness and societal impact. Several common threads emerge. One is the importance of balance—balancing incentives for innovators with protection for creators, balancing the benefits of AI’s openness with the rights of those whose works are used, and balancing enforcement of rights with preservation of user liberties and the public domain. Another recurring theme is adaptability: copyright law, often rooted in pre-digital assumptions, must evolve in light of AI’s unprecedented capabilities, whether by updating old rules or by devising novel policy tools. Crucially, the contributions also remind us that copyright does not operate in a vacuum. GAI’s challenges intersect with questions of technology governance, competition and social justice. An ‘AI and Copyright Upgrade,’ therefore, it is not simply about doctrinal analysis—it is about ensuring that the copyright system continues to encourage human creativity and innovation while promoting equity and the public good in this new technological landscape. We hope that the ideas presented in this special issue will inform and inspire policymakers, academics and industry leaders as they work towards a future-proof and fair copyright regime for the AI age. Acting as the guest editor of this special issue, I would like to extend my gratitude to all the authors for their insightful contributions and careful research that made this special issue possible. I also thank the Hong Kong Commercial and Maritime Law Centre under the CityUHK School of Law for supporting the conference, which provided the fertile ground for these wonderful discussions. My gratitude also goes to all the conference participants, including Peter Yu, Guobin Cui, Jyh-An Lee, Yahong Li and Orabhund Panuspatthna, who kindly presented their views and shared their valuable comments. Special thanks to my colleague Yang Chen, our centre secretary Claire Dibo Huang and my PhD students Lingjun Gao and Yiyan Zhang, who co-organized the conference with me, for their hard work in setting up all the details. We are additionally grateful to the editorial team of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, especially editor-in-chief Prof. Eleonora Rosati and managing editor Ms. Sarah Harris, for providing the invaluable platform for us, and reviewers who provided valuable feedback and helped shape these papers into their final form. Finally, we acknowledge the support of our institutions and colleagues in fostering an environment where cutting-edge topics like AI and copyright can be rigorously explored. This collective effort has made the ‘AI and Copyright Upgrade’ special issue a reality, and we trust that it will provide useful suggestions for the HK legislators to consider and contribute meaningfully to the ongoing dialogue at the intersection of technology and copyright law.
The introduction of smart contracts into the social sphere and their active use requires a detailed analysis. The classification of such contracts and the description of their features will make it possible to specify the legal regulation in the field of the use of these electronic systems. The purpose of the study is to examine the features of smart contracts and propose a more complete (expanded) classification of them for various reasons. The research is based on methods of comparative analysis, synthesis, interpretation of legal norms and a comprehensive analysis of works on the chosen topic by both domestic authors and foreign specialists. The work resulted in additional grounds on which smart contracts can be categorized. The characteristics of smart contracts are also described: efficiency, security, lack of centralization, transparency, peer-to-peer, automation, and protection against fraud. Conclusion: smart contracts can be further classified depending on the environment in which they are executed (the blockchain technologies used), depending on their retribution for the parties to the transaction.
The article examines the integration of blockchain technology and smart contracts into the sphere of civil law relations, focusing on legal consequences and emerging problems related to their application. As these technologies continue to transform various sectors, including finance, supply chain management, and the real estate market, the need for appropriate legal regulation is becoming increasingly urgent. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively analyze the use of blockchain and smart contracts in civil law relations and to study legal issues, current judicial practice, and various regulatory approaches in different jurisdictions. The research is based on an interdisciplinary approach that combines elements of legal analysis, comparative law, as well as the study of modern digital technologies. By examining the intersection of these advanced technologies with established legal principles, the author aims to illuminate the evolving landscape of digital agreements and their consequences for civil law in the 21st century. Assessing the importance of international cooperation for the formation of cross-border legal standards, as well as the prospects and challenges of further development, this study allows for an understanding of the emerging legal landscape of blockchain technologies in the civil law sphere.
Chanuka Wijayakoon, Hai Dong, H. M. N. Dilum Bandara, Zahir Tari · 5 authors
Smart contracts can implement and automate parts of legal contracts, but ensuring their legal compliance remains challenging. Existing approaches such as formal specification, verification, and model-based development require expertise in both legal and software development domains, as well as extensive manual effort. Given the recent advances of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation, we investigate their ability to generate legally compliant smart contracts directly from natural language legal contracts, addressing these challenges. We propose a novel suite of metrics to quantify legal compliance based on modeling both legal and smart contracts as processes and comparing their behaviors. We select four LLMs, generate 20 smart contracts based on five legal contracts, and analyze their legal compliance. We find that while all LLMs generate syntactically correct code, there is significant variance in their legal compliance with larger models generally showing higher levels of compliance. We also evaluate the proposed metrics against properties of software metrics, showing they provide fine-grained distinctions, enable nuanced comparisons, and are applicable across domains for code from any source, LLM or developer. Our results suggest that LLMs can assist in generating starter code for legally compliant smart contracts with strict reviews, and the proposed metrics provide a foundation for automated and self-improving development workflows.
The article examines the main regulatory provisions governing digital legal relations, including the norms of civil legislation and legislation on digital assets. Particular attention is paid to the definition of the features of digital rights that distinguish them from other objects of turnover, as well as to the analysis of the conditions for the emergence, exercise and transfer of such rights in the framework of distributed registers. The legal peculi-arities of smart contracts as software constructions replacing traditional forms of contractual interaction and ensuring the fulfillment of obligations without the participation of the parties after the activation of the algorithm are considered. Legal risks arising in the absence of normative regulation of smart contracts are substantiated, including the impossibility of judicial correction of performance, loss of access to digital assets and uncertainty of identification of subjects. Measures to improve legislation are proposed, including the regulatory consolida-tion of the concept of a smart contract, the establishment of a presumption of ownership of a digital right for a person with access to a key, as well as the recognition of the legal significance of blockchain records in judicial protection. Сonclusion is made about the the necessity of systemic adaptation of civil legislation to new forms of digital interaction and technological autonomy of turnover.
The 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is currently the law of ninety-seven countries around the world. Part II (Formation of the Contracts) deals with the conclusion of the contract by way of the meeting of minds through offer and acceptance. CISG has been able to adapt to modern electronic means of communication such as email, despite the fact that the means of communication mentioned in the CISG are the ancient telegram and telex.When dealing with the electronic contract of sale, we are referring to those in which the offer and acceptance are made by electronic means, as derived from the rules of the offer and the acceptance under the CISG.In short, we are thinking about computers—today also mobile phones—connected to a network (internet). From this perspective, every purchase and sale contract under the CISG is capable of being concluded by electronic means following the classic and universal parameter (we find it in all legal systems in the world) of consent through the two declarations of will that give life to the contract, the offer and the acceptance. The offer and acceptance as a mechanism well present in the life of the contract and not only in its formation since other issues such as its modification or termination are observed under those parameters.The Vienna Convention has demonstrated its flexibility by adapting and applying without problems to electronic contracting. Technologies are evolving rapidly and we no longer question the validity of contracts concluded through electronic means but new and interesting perspectives emerge, as well as various legal problems that can be associated with the era of the digital economy, from the use of platforms as an intermediary in the contracting of goods or services—or simply as a meeting place or recreational or social exchange—when not as part of the commercial contracts themselves, the use of computer programs in the formation and performance of the contract, legal transactions on data, or the use of artificial intelligence in contracting.From a legal perspective, the question is whether the CISG, which is a traditional instrument of contract law, is sufficient to respond to the problems posed by the digital economy, specifically in the rise of the so-called SmartCcontracts, and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the formation of the contract.
This study presents a comparative analysis of trademark protection in the metaverse and the registration of virtual goods and non‐fungible tokens (NFTs) across three distinct legal systems: those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Korea. Drawing on recent case law and evolving administrative guidelines, this study examines how traditional trademark doctrines—such as the likelihood‐of‐confusion standard in the U.S. under the Lanham Act, source-identifying function under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, and proactive legislative reforms implemented by the Korean Intellectual Property Office—are being adapted to address the challenges posed by digital and virtual environments. Specifically, this study analyzes landmark cases such as Hermès International v. Rothschild and Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps , which illustrate the extension of trademark protection to NFTs and other digital assets, as well as the interplay between trademark rights and freedom of expression. It also evaluates recent updates to international classification frameworks—including the 2024 Nice Classification and the Madrid Protocol—and discusses their implications for ensuring uniformity and effective enforcement of trademarks in a borderless digital market. The findings reveal that while each jurisdiction applies its own legal traditions to metaverse trademark disputes, all share a common policy objective: to prevent consumer confusion and safeguard brand integrity in an increasingly digital economy. Ultimately, the study advocates for proactive registration of trademarks as virtual goods and NFTs to streamline enforcement and enhance legal certainty, thereby fostering innovation and facilitating global trade in virtual environments.
Smart contracts, self-executing programs on blockchain platforms, are transforming how contractual obligations are expressed and enforced. Their adoption presents complex legal challenges, particularly in ascertaining the true will of contracting parties. This paper explores doctrinal and practical difficulties in determining intent within smart contracts, examining the transformation of the autonomy of will, the legal nature of smart contracts, the expression and proof of consent, and judicial and regulatory developments. Special emphasis is placed on Uzbekistan, where legal infrastructure remains underdeveloped. Through comparative analysis and authoritative academic sources, the article proposes solutions such as hybrid contractual models, legal recognition of smart contracts as electronic transactions, and standardized frameworks to ensure fairness and enforceability.
Background: The rise of blockchain technology has led to the development of smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into code. While they promise enhanced efficiency, security, and automation, the legal implications of smart contracts on conventional contract law remain largely underexplored. The advent of these digital contracts challenges traditional legal frameworks and calls for a reassessment of existing contract law principles. Objective: This study aims to analyze the implications of smart contracts for conventional contract law, focusing on the legal, ethical, and practical challenges they present. The research seeks to evaluate how smart contracts align with or diverge from traditional contract principles such as offer, acceptance, and enforceability. Method: A qualitative research approach was employed, utilizing a comprehensive literature review and case law analysis to explore the intersection of smart contracts and conventional contract law. Interviews with legal experts and blockchain developers were also conducted to gather insights on real-world applications. Results: The findings reveal that while smart contracts offer substantial benefits in terms of automation and security, they also raise issues related to ambiguity, legal recognition, and the need for updated regulations. The study identifies a gap in existing legal frameworks regarding the enforceability of smart contracts. Conclusion: Smart contracts have significant potential to revolutionize contract law, but their integration into conventional legal systems requires substantial legal reform and adaptation. Further research is needed to establish clear regulatory standards.
The ontological issues such as the concept, features, and attributes of smart contracts written in code and running on the blockchain have been the focus of research in the academic community.In this paper, we first construct a smart contract illegal behavior determination model based on the C4.5 decision tree algorithm, which realizes accurate prediction and determination of illegal behaviors existing in smart contract transactions by extracting multiple attribute features of smart contract transaction data.Then, the correlation between smart contract features and contract risk is analyzed by Pearson coefficient, and the risk assessment evaluation system of smart contract performance is constructed by using hierarchical analysis.Finally, the fulfillment path of smart contract is proposed by synthesizing all the analysis results.Among the 24 randomly selected samples, the total prediction probability of the illegal behavior determination model based on the C4.5 decision tree algorithm reaches 95.83%, which is able to effectively identify the illegal behavior of smart contracts.The Pearson chi-square value between smart contract features and contract risk is 224.6317, and the Sig.(two-tailed) value is 0.000, indicating that there is a significant correlation between the two.By constructing a smart contract risk assessment index system, this paper designs a dynamic monitoring model of smart contract fulfillment risk level, and proposes a smart contract fulfillment path from the aspects of reasonable allocation of legal responsibility and legal regulation of contract fulfillment.
Mrs. V. Deepapriya, C. Sathana, J. Rishwana Begam, V Rohini · 6 authors
Ensuring robust image security in cloud environments is a critical challenge due to risks such as unauthorized access, data tampering, and privacy breaches. This study introduces a Blockchain-based Secure Image Encryption (BC-SIE) method using Chebyshev Polynomial Fostered Hierarchical Auto-Associative Polynomial Convolutional Neural Network (CPHAPCNN) to enhance security, integrity, and high-fidelity image reconstruction. During encryption, the input image is divided into two unpredictable cryptographic shares, represented by black dot patterns, rendering them meaningless individually and preventing unauthorized access. These shares are then secured on a blockchain using an optimized BLAKE2b hashing algorithm, providing efficient and collision-resistant storage. Furthermore, the Chebyshev polynomial-based encryption strengthens security by introducing pixel scrambling, which makes the method resistant to cryptographic attacks. For decryption, the shares are recombined to reconstruct the image, but this introduces noise, impacting image quality. To mitigate this, a Hierarchical Auto-Associative Polynomial Convolutional Neural Network (HAPCNN) is utilized to reduce noise and preserve image details, ensuring near-lossless recovery. The performance of the BC-SIE-CPHAPCNN framework is evaluated using various metrics, including processing time, correlation coefficient, entropy, peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR: 28.44 dB), and mean square error (MSE). The results demonstrate superior encryption security and image reconstruction accuracy, with an updated computed SSIM accuracy of 91.75%. Additionally, the Delegated Proof of Stake (DT-DPoS) blockchain consensus mechanism enhances both security and scalability. Experimental evaluations confirm that this approach outperforms existing methods, making it ideal for cloud storage, medical imaging, and secure surveillance systems.
The integration of blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) in legal contract execution has revolutionized traditional contract enforcement mechanisms. Smart contracts, self-executing contracts with terms encoded into blockchain networks, have emerged as a transformative tool in business transactions, reducing the reliance on intermediaries and enhancing contract security. AI further enhances these contracts by providing predictive analytics, natural language processing (NLP) for contract interpretation, and automated dispute resolution mechanisms. However, despite their potential, the legal recognition and enforcement of smart contracts pose significant challenges. Jurisdictional issues, regulatory compliance, contract validity, and the limitations of blockchain immutability necessitate an in-depth analysis of the legal landscape governing smart contracts. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding AI-driven smart contracts, identifying their advantages, limitations, and future prospects. The study examines case laws, real-time implementations, and the role of AI in streamlining dispute resolution. The findings reveal that while blockchain enhances contract security and AI assists in interpretation, the lack of uniform legal frameworks remains a major hurdle. Through comparative analysis of existing regulatory approaches and real-world applications, this paper outlines potential solutions for effective enforcement and dispute resolution in AI-enhanced smart contracts.
It is quite challenging to properly address the issues of digital assets and online identities by conventional estate rules in the era of digital technologies. Rising social media platforms, cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and other virtual assets have made digital legacy complex. Current research highlights the constraints of existing estate laws for the administration of digital assets after death and the legal obstacles resulting from digital platform contractual limitations. The key challenges identified are assets classification, protection of privacy rights, and enforcement of policies on a wider scale. By comparing the global legal approaches and evolving trends in digital inheritance, a comprehensive framework including digital assets into estate planning has been proposed. A balanced legal framework ensuring fair distribution, protecting heirs' rights and building trust in the digital economy is the solution.
The article is devoted to the study of the features of smart contracts, which are a type of electronic contracts. Smart contracts, which are also called “smart contracts” (origin of the word “smart contract”), correspond to modern trends in digitalization and provide an effective mechanism for the implementation of business, financial and economic relations in a virtual environment. The following methods were used in the study: general logical, method of analysis and synthesis, formal-legal, comparative-legal, systemic. When comparing the so-called “technological” and legal approaches to understanding the concept of “smart contract”, the views of different groups of foreign and domestic scientists and researchers on the interpretation of this concept were analyzed. The principle of operation of a smart contract is considered on a specific example, while the way in which a smart contract operates in certain specific conditions is studied in detail and possible reasons for its failure to perform are analyzed. When analyzing the operation of smart contracts, their practical, technical, legislative problems and features were identified. Thus, the feature of immutability of a smart contract is its advantage because it excludes the intervention of the human factor. But the immutability of a smart contract is also its disadvantage because it makes it impossible to conclude additional agreements to a smart contract when certain circumstances change. Taking into account the study of the properties of a smart contract and an example of its operation, it can be stated that a smart contract can function only in a certain environment provided that the executable program code has direct and unlimited access to the objects of the smart contract. This creates integration problems of a smart contract with the objects of its operation. Thus, if the subject of a smart contract is real estate and in this regard the specified electronic contract requires notarial electronic certification and corresponding registration in the digital environment, then today in Ukraine there is an integration problem of electronic notarial certification of such contracts due to the absence and legislative uncertainty of the mechanism of electronic notarial certification and registration. Also relevant is the problem of smart contracts regarding payments under them in cryptocurrency, which also requires a legislative solution, since the legal status of cryptocurrency in Ukraine has not yet been established. Solving these problems in the future will allow for the wider use of smart contracts by their Ukrainian counterparties.
Introduzione: I processi di digitalizzazione nelle attività creative permettono di ottenere nuovi contenuti attraverso l'uso di dati e algoritmi di machine learning, creando relazioni inedite. In questo contesto, il diritto d’autore deve proteggere gli autori senza ostacolare l'uso dei dati virtuali, necessari per risultati originali. Metodologia: La ricerca esplora l'impatto dei non-fungible token (NFT), tecnologia emergente che ha rivoluzionato il settore artistico, sollevando problematiche legate al diritto d’autore e alla speculazione. Risultati: L'uso di tecnologie digitali ha aumentato l'indipendenza degli autori dai tradizionali intermediari, con i social network come vetrine virtuali. Nonostante le incertezze giuridiche, le prospettive sono positive grazie a strumenti come smart contract e blockchain. Conclusioni: Nonostante le problematiche legate agli NFT e alle incertezze normative, l'innovazione tecnologica, come l'automazione tramite blockchain, offre opportunità per un futuro promettente per la protezione dei diritti d’autore.
The subject of the study is the main theoretical approaches to understanding the nature and functional role of smart contracts developed in the Russian civil doctrine. The object of the study is public relations in the field of using smart contracts as a means of regulating the turnover of copyright objects. The author raises the actual problem of using smart contracts in the field of copyright protection. The relevance of the issue is due to the widespread technological innovations in the field of intellectual property turnover, which requires the state to develop new solutions in the field of legal policy. The use of smart contracts is a promising technological solution that can ensure the effectiveness of protecting the interests of copyright subjects. Special attention is paid to certain aspects of the operation of smart contracts (their modification, termination) within the framework of the turnover of rights to copyright objects. The research methodology involves the use of structural and functional analysis tools, a method of interpreting legal ideas and a systematic approach, on the basis of which the article attempts to identify the functional significance of smart contracts as a technological and legal phenomenon in the sphere of turnover of copyright objects. The use of smart contracts is an innovative approach that contributes to the improvement of document management in Russian copyright law. The main conclusions of the author are the statement of the limited nature of the use of smart contracts in the framework of copyright protection of the results of intellectual activity. The author's contribution to the disclosure of the research topic is determined by the identification of differences between smart contracts and classical means of regulating contractual relations. Based on the conducted research, the author suggests ways to improve the legislative policy of the state, related to the lack of an orderly system of civil law norms governing relations in the field of smart contracts as tools for ensuring the registration of copyright objects and the fulfillment of private law obligations. The author substantiates the need to develop the provisions of civil legislation in terms of expanding legal structures capable of ensuring the fulfillment of agreements reached between the parties to a private law relationship.
This article examines the legal qualification of smart contracts within civil law jurisdictions, emphasizing the challenges posed by automated, code-based agreements in systems traditionally grounded in codified statutes and doctrinal principles. By exploring current scholarly debates, legislative approaches, and judicial interpretations, this study highlights the tension between the self-executing nature of smart contracts and the requirement for consent, formality, and interpretation under civil codes. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of doctrinal writings, statutory frameworks, and case-based discussions, the paper identifies core issues of enforceability, liability, and consumer protection. Results reveal the need for a more coherent integration of legal theory and technological design, underscoring the role of hybrid solutions that blend human interpretation with automated execution. The discussion situates these findings in the broader trajectory of contract law modernization, concluding with recommendations for policymakers and practitioners regarding risk mitigation, technological design improvements, and harmonized regulatory standards.
This comprehensive study examines the integration of smart contracts into civil law systems and analyzes the associated regulatory challenges. The research investigates the fundamental nature of smart contracts as technological tools and legal instruments, their compatibility with existing civil law frameworks, and the emerging regulatory approaches across different jurisdictions. Through systematic analysis of legislative developments, case law, and scholarly discourse, this study identifies key legal issues including contract formation, performance, enforcement, and dispute resolution in the context of smart contracts. The findings reveal significant gaps in current regulatory frameworks and propose solutions for harmonizing smart contract implementation with established civil law principles. This research contributes to the ongoing academic discourse on legal technology integration and provides practical recommendations for legislators, legal practitioners, and technology developers.
The article examines promising directions for improving access to justice in criminal cassation proceedings using modern digital technologies. It is stated that digitalization in this area should expand the possibilities of realization of the right to judicial protection and not create additional procedural barriers or restrictions on ac-cess to justice. The author proposes a system of main directions for digital transformation of cassation pro-ceedings, including creating a mechanism for digital interaction between participants, forming a procedure for remote implementation of procedural rights through personalized electronic access, implementing distributed ledger technology, and developing electronic identification procedures for participants. The necessity of main-taining procedural guarantees while implementing digital innovations is substantiated. Specific amendments to criminal procedure legislation are proposed to implement these directions.