Blockchain Papers

Suriyanto Suriyanto

The rapid evolution of algorithms and Artificial Intelligence has given rise to a new category of criminal conduct that conventional criminal law fails to recognize: algorithmic crime. Unlike traditional cybercrime, algorithmic crime operates autonomously, transnationally, and often without direct human mens rea. Examples include 24/7 gambling bots that recruit victims, AI-driven ransomware that selects targets, deepfakes used for fraud, and manipulative algorithms in e-commerce and illegal online lending platforms. This article argues that Indonesia’s cyber legal framework is structurally unprepared. First, substantively, Law No. 1 of 2024 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law) and Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) remain anthropocentric, defining perpetrators exclusively as human or legal persons and providing no normative space for autonomous systems as subjects of law. Second, structurally, law enforcement agencies lack digital forensic capacity and are outpaced by perpetrators. Third, culturally, conventional Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) procedures require an average of nine months, whereas data stored on foreign clouds can be deleted within seven days. Using a normative juridical method with conceptual and comparative approaches, this study identifies three fundamental crises: an ontological crisis regarding the legal subject, an epistemological crisis concerning digital evidence, and an axiological crisis in sentencing philosophy. Without comprehensive reform, Indonesia risks becoming a primary market for algorithmic crime. This article proposes a seven-point roadmap: (1) adoption of a system accountability doctrine to prosecute algorithm controllers; (2) enactment of a Digital Criminal Procedure Code enabling 72-hour takedown orders and cryptocurrency asset seizure; (3) ratification of the Budapest Convention and a reciprocal Indonesian CLOUD Act for cross-border data access; (4) establishment of a specialized Cyber Court and algorithmic auditors under the Supreme Court; (5) shifting sentencing policy from incarceration to asset forfeiture; (6) implementation of a National AI Audit System; and (7) strengthening class action mechanisms for victims. Keywords: Cyber Law, Algorithmic Crime, ITE Law, System Accountability, CLOUD Act, Digital Sovereignty.

AVNISH YADAV AVNISH YADAV

The rapid advancement of digital technologies has significantly transformed the landscape of commerce, leading to new challenges in the protection and enforcement of trademark rights. Traditionally, trademarks functioned within territorial boundaries and were primarily associated with physical goods and services. However, the emergence of digital platforms such as e-commerce websites, social media, domain name systems, blockchain technologies, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), and the metaverse has expanded the scope of trademark usage into virtual environments. This Paper examines the evolving nature of trademark protection in the digital and virtual world, with particular emphasis on the adequacy of existing legal frameworks in addressing contemporary challenges. It analyzes key issues such as cybersquatting, keyword advertising, social media infringement, unauthorized use of trademarks in NFTs, and the complexities of trademark use in the metaverse. The study also highlights jurisdictional challenges arising from the borderless nature of the internet, which complicate enforcement mechanisms and legal remedies.

Marufjon Yokubjonov

The emergence of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) as a novel digital asset class has precipitated significant legal uncertainty across multiple jurisdictions. Unlike fungible cryptocurrencies, NFTs encode uniqueness and provenance on distributed ledger technology, yet existing legal frameworks — conceived for tangible property, intellectual creations, and financial instruments — have proven inadequate in determining their precise legal character. This article engages in a rigorous comparative legal analysis of the legal status of NFTs in Uzbekistan, the European Union, and the United States of America, examining how each jurisdiction has — or has failed to — accommodate NFTs within property law, intellectual property law, securities regulation, and consumer protection frameworks. A central concern of the article is the application of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms — including arbitration, mediation, and online dispute resolution (ODR) — to NFT-related conflicts. The article identifies critical lacunae in domestic and international legal frameworks and proposes concrete legislative reforms tailored to the Uzbek legal context, while drawing on best practices from comparator jurisdictions. The study concludes that regulatory clarity, combined with adaptable ADR infrastructure, is essential to foster a secure and equitable digital economy in the Republic of Uzbekistan and beyond.

Timothy T. Hsieh

With the appointment of John Squires, former Intellectual Property Counsel of Goldman Sachs, as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), the agency stands at a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle over the scope of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Squires-together with USPTO leadership figures such as Howard Lutnick, an inventor on hundreds of business method patents-enters office at a time when innovation in fields such as artificial intelligence, financial technology, blockchain, Web3, and algorithmically mediated medical diagnostics is increasingly constrained by the uncertain and often inconsistently applied jurisprudence stemming from Alice, Mayo, and their progeny. Early administrative signals during Director Squires's tenure indicate an institutional willingness to reconsider entrenched approaches to § 101 examination. This Article proposes the most significant institutional reform to § 101 examination in decades: the creation of a dedicated, legally trained § 101 Examination Unit-composed of attorneys, former administrative patent judges ("APJs"), or examiners with substantial legal education-to assume responsibility for subject-matter eligibility determinations after traditional art-unit examination concludes. Operating as a quasi-intermediate appellate body and building on historical "Super Examiner" roles, this unit would absorb § 101 examination from the technologically oriented art units, enhance patent quality, reduce PTAB appeals, and provide a consistent, legally grounded framework aligned with administrative-law principles, precedent, and the realities of modern innovation. An alternative approach is to simply assign all 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to the PTAB, due to APJs having the ideal legal background to handle and analyze all 101 rejections.

Luohaoran Zhu

In the digital era, consumers increasingly encounter an illusion of ownership when purchasing copyrighted works such as video games, digital music albums, or e-books. Under dominant licensing models exacerbated by cloud computing and subscription services users acquire mere access rights rather than true property interests, rendering their acquisitions vulnerable to platform shutdowns, account terminations, or service discontinuations. This phenomenon marks the “vanishing ownership” of digital content, eroding the traditional balance struck by the First Sale Doctrine in U.S. copyright law and the Exhaustion Principle in EU law. This article examines the failure of these doctrines to adapt to digital distribution, as evidenced by landmark cases. It further explores emerging challenges and opportunities posed by cloud-based services and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), which promise transferable digital ownership but raise unresolved questions about copyright exhaustion, resale rights, and potential disruptions to rightholders’ licensing revenues. Through comparative legal analysis and doctrinal critique, this study argues for reconstructing the First Sale Doctrine and digital exhaustion to restore consumer property rights. It proposes hybrid legislative and technological solutions, including limited exhaustion for permanently downloaded works, mandatory resale mechanisms, and blockchain-enabled forward-and-delete protocols.

Bakhshillo Khodjaev, Q.L. Mirzabek

The integration of smart contracts within blockchain technology represents atransformative approach to intellectual property rights (IPR) management, fundamentally altering traditional copyright enforcement mechanisms. This article demonstrates how distributed computer networks combined with automated regulatory devices provide superior alternatives to conventional IPR handling methods. Smart contracts reduce the need for arbitration through automated execution of predetermined terms and coding protocols. The implementation of blockchain-based smart contract systems enhances proprietary rights management, which can be particularly relevant for the BRICS nations currently facing evolving digital governance challenges. Research indicates that automated proprietary system networks are progressively superseding traditional IPR management approaches. The development of automated governance systems, coupled with decentralized IPR frameworks, presents both opportunities and regulatory challenges for the BRICS countries. Embedded payment mechanisms within smart contracts ensure automatic royalty distribution when copyrighted content is accessed, eliminating manual processing burdens and associated costs for creators. The implementation of smart contracts also enhances agreement integrity and reduces plagiarism risks through the use of immutable blockchain records. This study examines how organizations can establish enhanced trustworthiness and optimize digital business processes through blockchain-based copyright management. Advanced analytical tools accelerate the understanding of both the benefits and limitations within current copyright frameworks. Users are able to seamlessly access blockchain systems, creating multiple account types as required. Every blockchain entry provides transparent records of content usage and account activities. The digital system prevents misrepresentation by maintaining visible platform activities that are accessible to all stakeholders, ensuring comprehensive transparency of development and execution history for all agreement participants.

D. H. Borzianytsia

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional and legal aspects of digital intellectual property in the context of the development of the information society and Ukraine's accelerated digital transformation under wartime conditions.It examines the impact of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), on the transformation of traditional concepts of authorship, ownership, and creative freedom.Special attention is paid to the need for reinterpreting constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 41 and 54 of the Constitution of Ukraine through the lens of technological neutrality and contemporary digital realities.The study focuses on the challenges of identifying authorship in works generated with the use of artificial intelligence, as well as on the legal nature of ownership rights to digital assets, including NFTs.It also analyzes the role of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in shaping the doctrine of digital rights and adapting constitutional interpretation to the challenges of the digital era.Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of digital intellectual property for Ukraine's post-war recovery, especially in the context of developing a national Digital IP Strategy aligned with European approaches and initiatives.The article substantiates the conclusion that the constitutional modernization of intellectual property law is necessary to ensure a balance between human rights, technological innovation, open access to knowledge, and national resilience.Such an approach will contribute to the harmonization of Ukraine's legal system with European and international standards while preserving the human-centered nature of legal regulation in the field of creative activity in the digital age.

Amy Thomas, Maria-Jose Schmidt-Kessen, Simon Karlin

This chapter explores the role of intellectual property (IP) in the commercialisation and regulation of sports and eSports, focussing on copyright, trade marks, and image rights. It outlines how these rights enable key stakeholders - such as sports organisers, players and fans - to assert control over various aspects of sporting content and performances. Though comparative analysis of legal frameworks in Germany, the EU, and the UK, the chapter highlights significant jurisdictional differences in the protection and interpretation of these rights, particularly in relation to the use of player likenesses and ownership of performance outputs. The chapter also investigates how new technologies, including generative artificial intelligence (AI) and Non-Fungible Token (NFTs), might complicate rights-based relationships in both fields. A central theme is the imbalance of rights and bargaining power among stakeholders, especially players, whose creative contributions are often excluded from IP protection. In doing so, the chapter raises normative questions and critical reflections on fairness, enforcement, and contractual practices in the regulation of sports and eSports content.

O.O.O. Law firm, Upper Marlboro, USA, Oluwafunmibi Grace Ajakaye, Adeyinka Lawal, Independent Researcher, Texas, USA;

The emergence of blockchain technology and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has fundamentally transformed the digital landscape, creating unprecedented challenges for intellectual property protection and copyright enforcement across transatlantic jurisdictions. This comprehensive study examines the evolving regulatory frameworks governing digital assets, blockchain-based intellectual property rights, and copyright infringement in the context of NFTs within both European Union and United States legal systems. The research investigates how traditional intellectual property laws are being adapted to address the unique characteristics of blockchain technology, including immutability, decentralization, and cross-border transactions that often transcend conventional jurisdictional boundaries. The study employs a comparative legal analysis methodology, examining recent legislative developments, judicial precedents, and regulatory guidance from key transatlantic jurisdictions including the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union as a collective entity. Through systematic analysis of case law, regulatory frameworks, and emerging legal doctrines, this research identifies critical gaps in current legal protections and proposes innovative solutions for harmonizing intellectual property enforcement in the digital age. The analysis reveals significant disparities between European and American approaches to blockchain governance, with European jurisdictions typically favoring more prescriptive regulatory frameworks while American systems rely heavily on existing intellectual property doctrines adapted for digital contexts.

Bixiao Luo

This paper investigates the unresolved intellectual property challenges posed by non-fungible tokens (NFTs), a rapidly growing class of digital assets that blend decentralized technologies with creative content distribution. Despite widespread adoption across art, entertainment, and gaming sectors, the legal infrastructure surrounding NFTs remains fragmented, creating uncertainty for creators, buyers, and platforms alike. The objective of this study is to critically evaluate existing theoretical models—including property-based, contract-based, and provenance-centered approaches—and assess their adequacy in governing NFT-related rights and obligations. Methodologically, the paper employs a comparative legal analysis of current NFT licensing practices, supported by interdisciplinary review of blockchain architecture, smart contract functionalities, and relevant international IP frameworks. Based on legal theory, technical standards, and case studies, the paper identifies critical gaps in enforceability, rights attribution, and jurisdictional clarity. In response, the study proposes a hybrid legal-technical framework comprising seven interconnected components: Smart Licensing Infrastructure (SLI), an On-Chain Provenance and Rights Registry, Embedded Royalty Clauses with Legal Backing, Token-Linked Legal Contracts (TLCs), along with dispute resolution and jurisdictional compatibility. These elements collectively aim to bridge decentralized code execution with enforceable legal standards, facilitating clearer licensing arrangements, more reliable royalty enforcement, and scalable dispute resolution mechanisms. It presents a novel blueprint for technical capabilities of NFTs with the foundational requirements of intellectual property law. By incorporating legal metadata, verifiable authorship records, and jurisdictional parameters directly into NFT structures, the framework strengthens legal predictability without restricting innovation. This research contributes to academic discourse by advancing a multidimensional governance approach for digital assets, offering actionable pathways toward regulatory coherence and sustainable development within the NFT ecosystem moving forward.

Tianxiang He

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.

Robert Thomas Kilroy

This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published. This essay attempts to test the ways 19th century spectatorship is viewed and interpreted in contemporary artistic practices by exploring the impact of the early decades of photography through the lens of ongoing developments in contemporary visual technology. The central question is: how might a contemporaneous object like the NFT, or non-fungible token, allow us to think through a historical object such as the daguerreotype? The first half of the essay outlines the conceptual grounds for this analysis, through a critical reading of Errki Huhtamo’s ‘symptomatic’ approach to the practice of media archeology. In the second half of the essay, a new methodology – based on Slavoj Žižek’s ‘short-circuit’ comparative model – is proposed and applied as what I term a “media postmortem” and its supporting concept of “symptomatic plasticity”. The broader aims of the essay are twofold: (1) propose a new approach to the study of art historical phenomenon that, going further than media archeology, interrogates a chronological chain of events with a view to identifying repeated structural patterns, symptomatic eruptions that open up a circular rather than linear conception of (art historical) time; (2) map a new direction for the study of images by way of a more intense, diagnostically acute, focus on the question of materiality.

Sameer Mandhan

The financial sector in the 21st century is experiencing a revolution. The major disruptor is decentralised finance (DeFi) which leverages emerging blockchain technology to eliminate the need for centralised financial institutions and empowers individuals with peer-to-peer digital exchanges. DeFi is underpinned by cryptoassets such as bitcoin, ether, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). As DeFi offerings have become increasingly sophisticated, important legal issues have arisen. One such issue is whether the law is appropriately positioned to recognise and give effect to the use of cryptoassets as collateral in lending arrangements. The lack of legal certainty at present poses a substantial risk to market participants who are, for the most part, transacting blindly. This article, therefore, addresses the applicability and comparative suitability of New Zealand's Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) to cryptoasset collateral, using the recent Singaporean case of Chefpierre as a test case. It argues that the PPSA is generally better positioned than English (Singaporean) secured credit law to respond to the emerging use of cryptoassets as collateral. Nevertheless, the challenges posed by cryptoasset collateral necessitate legislative change; in particular, change to the PPSA's perfection requirements and priority rules. After reviewing and analysing recent legal developments in the United Kingdom and the United States, this article proposes that a number of bespoke rules and concepts designed to respond to cryptoassets be introduced into the PPSA.

Hendri Khuan, Yenni Novita Wulandari, Chak Sothy

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.

Temurbek Pulatov

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.

Yujie Zhao

The commercialisation of digital content has prospered in the past few years, with the concept of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) coming up and capturing the attention of everyone. However, the interplay between physical and digital goods introduces complexities and challenges in determining the scope of trademark protection. The emergence of the concept of the virtual environment, or ‘metaverse’, which is thought to be a medium for trademark infringement, further complicates this situation. Against this background, this article concentrates on whether the trademark framework applicable in the real world can be transposed to the NFTs and virtual goods in virtual spaces (VGIVS). <br><br>The thesis analyses this issue by first discussing the establishment of NFT-related trademark rights, i.e., the registration and use of trademarks. The article identifies the risk of an unduly broad monopoly and suggests issuing further guidelines to fill the gap. It also points out the current ambiguity and best practice on the demonstration of trademark use. <br><br>It also focuses on trademark infringement in virtual environments. Through the analysis of the landmark case of Hermès Int’l v Rothschild (the MetaBirkins case), this thesis captures the hybrid nature of VGIVS, which can usually be both expressive and commercial. The expressiveness in the VGIVS is protectable and the Rogers test can be applied to different types of VGIVS. To better reflect the characteristics of the virtual space and VGIVS, it proposes a refined ‘reasonable expressiveness’ threshold test specifically in the context of virtual environments, considering the content of use, the context of use and the type of product to determine if a work in the virtual environment is protectable under the Rogers test. Additionally, it clarifies the Jack Daniel’s impact on the free creation in the virtual space and reconsiders the likelihood of confusion in light of virtual spaces.

Ujjwal Dipankar Gautam, Mantasha Fatima

The paper delves into the impact of non-fungible tokens on trademark in the fashion industry. NFTs are digital assets that offer evidence of ownership and authenticity and are stored in blockchain technology. In the emerging scenario, fashion brands are using NFTs to offer new opportunities to attract consumer attention, thereby enhancing marketing techniques in the digital space. New techniques have been introduced by NFTs to deal with fashion brands leveraging blockchain technology and providing an effective marketplace. Nonetheless, NFTs are also posing danger to trademark infringement, counterfeiting goods, and brand identity in the digital space. The lack of specific legislation regulating NFTs throughout the world has caused challenges for trademark laws and the fashion industry to safeguard their intellectual property.The research in this field suggests that even though there are limitations in the ever-growing sphere of NFTs, there are immense opportunities as well if regulated well. The paper analyses the prospects of the blockchain technology in securing fashion brands in the digital space. The paper also delves into ethical dilemma including artistic attribution and provides valuable insights for law students, professionals, and policymakers to explore the emerging field of digital ownership and trademark protection. Ultimately, the paper provides recommendations for better incorporation of effective legislation on NFTs in the Indian marketplace.

Fernando Carbajo Cascón

Abstract The market for the sale of art-NFTs is a reality, but due to their diffuse legal nature, there are many doubts about this business model from a legal perspective. This raises uncertainties as to whether it is possible to recognise a property right over the NFT as a digital asset and an online distribution rights model, where the principle of exhaustion is recognised from the intellectual property law perspective.

Robby Nugroho Setiawan, Anwar Hidayat, Muhamad Abas

This research investigates the implementation of smart contracts in the Indonesian property sector, examining the legal opportunities and challenges involved. Blockchain technology offers high transparency, efficiency, and security in property transactions, but faces regulatory and infrastructural hurdles. The aim of this research is to explore the related legal dynamics, identify socio-economic impacts, and offer sustainable solutions. The research method employed is a qualitative legal approach to gather and analyze data. The findings indicate that although blockchain can expedite transaction processes and enhance transparency, the legal validity of smart contracts and consumer protection remain major issues. Regulatory updates and increased awareness of data security are necessary to optimize the adoption of this technology in Indonesia.Keywords: Blockchain., Property law., Regulation., Smart contracts., Transparency

Manon Fafet

Abstract The Droit de Suite (DDS), designed to offer heightened protection for artists, remains absent from Japan’s legislative framework, potentially creating disparities among creators. The implementation of DDS in Japan encounters hurdles due to its administration’s intricate nature and associated costs. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have emerged as a promising solution, streamlining DDS processes through token transactions and obviating the need for time-intensive identification procedures. Japanese NFT exchange platforms have already begun providing DDS services, contributing to a more efficient and equitable system. This article delves into the legal complexities of integrating NFTs into the DDS structure, examining their enforceability in Japanese courts and evaluating the efficacy of tokenization within the country. While the discussion is primarily theoretical, the paper explores the concept of DDS, scrutinizes the essence and validity of NFT technology’s cornerstone—smart contracts, and explores the nuances of NFT transfers in Japan, a pivotal element for DDS implementation.

Jakub Wyczik

‘If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing,’ is a common refrain on the internet. With this in mind, the article delves into the landscape of property rights concerning digital assets, debunks common misconceptions and clarifies their legal position in the evolving economy. Through an analysis of their intangible nature, the article argues that digital assets are more akin to intellectual property than to tangible assets. Drawing on a spectrum of case law recognising digital assets as objects of property rights, it examines property law in various legal systems, ranging from common law jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, to civil law systems such as Germany, China and Poland. It also explores the notion of digital assets as contractual claims and navigates the complexities of conflicts of laws, advocating for a universal framework to protect digital property and data ownership beyond the realm of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs).

Vikram, Sangeeta Sharma

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have emerged as a significant innovation in the digital economy, particularly in India, where the intersection of art, technology, and finance is evolving rapidly. NFTs are unique digital tokens secured through blockchain technology, representing ownership of digital or physical assets such as art, music, collectibles, and virtual real estate. Their rise in India is marked by increasing participation from creators, investors, and technology platforms.Despite their growing popularity, NFTs operate within a fragmented and ambiguous legal environment. India currently lacks specific legislation dedicated to NFTs, leading to reliance on existing laws such as the Indian Contract Act, 1872; the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000; intellectual property laws; and provisions in the Finance Act, 2022 concerning virtual digital assets. However, these frameworks offer limited clarity on issues such as copyright ownership, contract enforceability via smart contracts, taxation, and consumer protection.This research paper undertakes a comprehensive examination of the legal standing of NFTs in India. It evaluates the applicability of current legal instruments, identifies regulatory and operational gaps, and explores international best practices. The study also emphasizes the need for a clear, forward-looking legal framework that fosters innovation while ensuring adequate safeguards against fraud, misuse, and environmental concerns. A balanced regulatory approach is essential for India to harness the full potential of NFTs and position itself as a leader in the digital asset economy.

Timothy Arviando Andrade, Irfan Hakim

This research analyzes intellectual property law in relation to the transfer of economic rights from the author of the intellectual creation represented into the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) to the NFT buyer by a smart contract. The purpose of this research is to examine and comprehend the transfer of economic rights from the author of the intellectual creation represented into the NFT to the NFT buyer by a smart contract. This research approaches the topic from legal perspective, using the normative juridical method. This research will closely examine several relevant the provisions of laws and regulations to identify and analyze the legal issues involved in the transfer of economic rights from the author of the intellectual creation represented into the NFT to the NFT buyer by a smart contract. Research has shown that Article 16 Paragraph (2) of the Copyright Law can be applied to the transfer of economic rights of intellectual creation represented into the NFT by a smart contract, using the argumentum per analogiam method. This means that NFT buyer can enjoy the economic rights listed in Article 9 Paragraph (1) the Copyright Law.

Joel Jordan Tobing, Ampuan Situmeang, Hari Sutra Disemadi

The development of technology and digital transformation has led to the growth of industries such as the creative business industry. One of its impacts is the emergence of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). NFTs are digital assets in the form of tokens representing ownership of a digital artwork. In Indonesia, NFTs currently lack specific legislative regulations, and there is no explicit and clear regulatory framework regarding the protection of NFTs in terms of their intellectual property aspects. Therefore, this study examines the development of NFTs in Indonesia, along with the legal position and protection of NFTs based on intellectual property law in Indonesia. In this research, the author employs a normative juridical research method with a legislative approach. Based on the research findings, it is evident that the development of NFTs, both globally and nationally, is quite significant. The public is increasingly becoming acquainted with NFTs, which have substantial prospects and are associated with many high-commercial-value works. Regarding NFTs as creative works, the regulation that accommodates the protection of intellectual property for NFTs in Indonesia is Law No. 28/2014. It is known that NFTs can take the form of images, paintings, videos, and music, which are considered parts of creations protected by copyright.