Abstract Nonâfungible tokens have caused a complete revolution in the digital space regarding how one thinks of unique assets such as pieces of art, music, and digital collectables, and how one trades them. Originating from blockchain technology, NFTs first came into existence in the year 2014 on a platform known as âCounterparty.â Since then, they have grown as an influential part of the digital economy. NFT is nonfungible, each token is unique and cannot be replacedâwhich results in unprecedented possibilities and issues in the digital world. However, with the increasing demand for NFTs, several legal issues have emerged particularly in India, where the laws are still underdeveloped. As NFTs are representations of copyrighted works primary issues arising from NFTs are also related to Copyright. Ambiguities with NFTs are misapprehension over ownership, the challenge of managing and licensing NFTs using smart contracts, and the risk of unauthorized minting of copyrighted materials. This paper addresses these critical issues evaluates the current legal status of NFTs in India and explores their intersection with copyright laws. The focus is particularly on buyers' rights, including ownership complexities, the management of rights through licensing and assignments, and the issues around copyright infringement. The research highlights the urgent need for a legal framework for NFTs, delves into the intricacies of NFT ownership, transfers, and licensing, examines the challenges of unauthorized minting and the enforcement of buyers' rights and offers possible solutions.
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.
Finding innovation in blockchain technology, the Online Art Gallery to changes the digital art marketplace to create a safe and transparent environment for artists and buyers. With this system, artists can sign up to upload, Manage and sell their artworks. Buyers can look for, purchase, and own with verified authenticity. Some of the most important features are the digital certificates generation, ownership verification as well as safe transactions. Blockchain-based, it offers greater security with watermarking, preventing screenshots, and decentralized storage through IPFS to prevent unauthorized use of the digital artworks. The process of buying artworks becomes relatively easy for the buyer, having an immutable transaction record on the blockchain that preserves ownership rights and establishes a basis of trust. The application also offers a user-friendly interface that connects artists to international crowds and simplifies the management and sale digital art to artists. The paper focuses on showing the enhancement of security, transparency, and efficiency in the marketplace by using blockchain technology for digital art, with value to both creators and collectors.
CryptoArt is revolutionising how digital artists protect and monetise their works. However, the position of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and CryptoArt within copyright law remains unclear. A lack of certainty in relation to rights, infringement and platform liability is creating inconsistency between NFT platforms and consumer confusion. Based on case study evidence from the empirical research of six NFT platforms, together with doctrinal and theoretical analysis, this thesis recommends how copyright law might, and should, be interpreted to provide legal certainty for the CryptoArt movement This thesis concludes how, within copyright law, NFTs could be classified as tangible CryptoAssets, thereby permitting the application of the exclusive distribution right to CryptoArt. This would provide legal certainty and clarity for the transfer of CryptoArt, the better protection and enforcement of copyright for digital artists, and clarify issues of liability for NFT platforms, so increasing consumer confidence and protection. Such a position is required to properly reflect the current practice of NFT platforms, legalise the minting and trading via secondary markets of CryptoArt, future-proof the law for further technological progress and bridge the gap that currently exists between the practice and the law. Such development is necessary to provide equality for digital artists with their non-digital counterparts, a high level of protection for rightsholders, and to further encourage business and technological development. Whilst this position has implications for NFTs generally as well as property law, the doctrine of digital exhaustion, the creative industries and beyond, this thesis argues that such a direction of travel is inevitable and fundamental to the development of blockchain technology and NFTs. Copyright is constantly evolving and NFTs are the latest technology to challenge its boundaries. This research concludes with how copyright can evolve without regulatory change, thereby providing CryptoArt with the foundation for it to flourish.
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.
The tokenisation of the economy is challenging the law pertaining to intellectual property (IP) rights. This chapter specifically focuses on the patent and copyright laws of the jurisdictions compared. It will demonstrate how there are many challenges and benefits from the application of IP rights by means of tokens operating on a blockchain-distributed ledger. However, this is an area of technology the law is far from settled. For instance, tokens can be used to partially or fully establish an IP right. Thus, the tokenisation process can go some way to securing the IP assets themselves that are licenced. Similarly, blockchain technology and tokens are transforming copyright law. This chapter will make mention of China, but only for the purpose of comparing copyright law.
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 âmetaverseâ, 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 Intâl 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 âreasonable expressivenessâ 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 Danielâs impact on the free creation in the virtual space and reconsiders the likelihood of confusion in light of virtual spaces.
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.
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.
Abstract Fashion companies protect and enforce their IP rights to scale and grow their business. Yet most fashion companies still face challenges in fighting counterfeit goods. This gap stands in the way of the success and prosperity of individual fashion businesses and the global fashion industry. Mainstreaming emerging technologies as tools for fashion businesses could narrow this gap. Fashion companies can use emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and blockchain for product authentication and counterfeit detection. Blockchain technology offers multiple solutions via digital twins, digital product passports, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), QR codes, and Near-Field Communication (NFC) chips to better authenticate fashion products while effectively detecting IP infringements. This article aims to showcase the opportunities and challenges in using blockchain technology as a tool for product authentication and counterfeit prevention. It focuses on the current state of the art in the use of blockchain technology in the fashion industry. It outlines initiatives that provide new blockchain solutions for fashion brands to better authenticate their products and win the fight against counterfeiting. The article concludes by comparing the use of blockchain technology by the fashion industry with other luxury sectors, such as the hard luxury sector, which includes watches and jewelry, the art and luxury furniture sectors, and the premium wine and spirits sectors.
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
Abstract The Droit de Suite (DDS), designed to offer heightened protection for artists, remains absent from Japanâs legislative framework, potentially creating disparities among creators. The implementation of DDS in Japan encounters hurdles due to its administrationâs 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 technologyâs cornerstoneâsmart contracts, and explores the nuances of NFT transfers in Japan, a pivotal element for DDS implementation.
âIf buying isnât owning, then piracy isnât stealing,â 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).
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.
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.
This paper provides a critical examination of Music Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) within the context of the digital transformation of the music industry, focusing on the implications for equitable artist compensation. As digitalization reshapes consumption and revenue models, the advent of Music NFTs, predicated on blockchain technology, presents a nuanced paradigm for artist-fan interactions and compensation structures. Through an interdisciplinary methodology that integrates literature review and expert interviews, this study scrutinizes the operational mechanisms of Music NFTs, their potential to reconfigure the economics of music production, and the attendant legal and technical challenges. While Music NFTs proffer an innovative approach to direct artist revenue and engagement, this inquiry reveals a complex landscape fraught with legal ambiguities, technological hurdles, and market volatility. The findings underscore the dialectical relationship between the potential benefits of Music NFTs for artists and the prevailing challenges that circumscribe their efficacy.
Dirk Andreas Zetzsche, Julia Sinnig, Areti Nikolakopoulou
This article discusses the EUâs approach to regulating crypto custody services under the Market in Crypto-assets (MiCA) Regulation against the background of asset diversions and misappropriations observed throughout the Crypto Winter. It seeks to identify whether MiCA meets its legislative objectives and whether it provides a sufficiently solid foundation for the future of the emerging crypto industry. We find that MiCAâs focus is on what we have called herein âinstitutional resilienceâ, ensuring that the custodian is soundly organized and governed and must not reuse clientsâ assets on their own accounts. At the same time, MiCA lacks strength on âasset resilienceâ (ie providing safeguards for cases where the custodian, third parties, the token-issuer or DeFi application, as the case may be, encounter difficulties). This article discusses the EUâs approach to regulating crypto custody under the Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA)1 Regulation. To ensure financial stability, an adequate degree of investor protection, market fairness and integrity in places where gaps in the traditional EU financial regulation have been identified,2 MiCA subjects crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to both licensing and financial supervision if they provide certain crypto-asset services specified in Article 3(1)(16) MiCA. The provision of custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients is one such crypto-asset service.3 Custody is one means of providing safekeeping and is the main function of investment fund depositaries.4 Under established investment fund regulation, custody requires registration âin a financial instruments account opened in the depositaryâs booksâ or physical delivery to the depositary.5 The AIFMD6 limits the holding in custody to financial instruments, whereas for other assets, ownership verification and record-keeping is required.7 The widespread insecurity about the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments or not8âprior to MiCAâalso impacted on what custody and safekeeping of crypto-assets was deemed to entail; this, in turn, may have contributed to token-holdersâ losses in a period known as the Crypto Winter,9 with billions of Euros in asset value lost in less than two years.10 These losses have undermined the token-holdersâ trust in crypto, threatening to halt the growth of crypto and investments in distributed ledger technology (DLT) at large,11 not even two years after enthusiastic predictions of a golden crypto future.12 Even today, when Bitcoin as most prominent digital asset experiences an upturn in the Spring of 2024, most large-volume crypto-assets (such as Ether, Tether, USCD) trade below their record highs of 2023. In this article, we seek to identify where MiCA furthers legal certainty in this regard, as well as the robustness of the crypto custody system at large, and whether MiCA provides a sufficiently solid foundation for the future of the emerging crypto industry. First, we discuss the context of crypto custody against the background of the Crypto Winter, the current market needs and the international proposals to regulate crypto in Section 2. We then highlight the scope of MiCAâs custody rules, as well as the general requirements applicable to all CASPs, and those affecting crypto custodians in particular in Section 3. Thereafter, Section 4 issues policy considerations, and Section 5 concludes. Starting in the second half of 2021, a series of operational shortcomings, malfunctions and asset diversions of major crypto projects became apparent, with losses often in the hundred millions of US Dollars.13 Following the Terra-Luna stablecoin algorithmsâ collapse in May 2022 that wiped out US$50 billion in just three days,14 the crypto industry experienced a of of prominent crypto such as and in been to as the for the crypto industry. is the of undermined trust in the crypto asset and traditional this crypto Crypto custodians have and to a in crypto Crypto the of that the all of their clientsâ in that and to the distributed These to and In this contributed to trust in Crypto custodians to the of to their clientsâ Crypto custodians custody to and the and the Crypto custodians custody with of crypto investments and on the same providing custody in to their other crypto-asset services the financial of to the same and In turn, of became widespread throughout the industry and other of undermined the crypto own Crypto custodians clientsâ assets with their own assets in a that their clientsâ assets their own as This for the case for where clientsâ the own Crypto custodians asset and that in on behalf of clients not those in the custodian own and Crypto custodians assets for on their own or a In losses with clientsâ today, than one after the Crypto in their and custodians to reuse the assets for their own investment or about crypto at a when of market of the crypto with to market and market integrity of clients to to These and the of crypto The of crypto custodians in the of that when on their custodians the prominent custodians not on their of their clientsâ The it that asset and as well as other custody throughout the industry. the emerging crypto and in most to for the in the of whether the the for this of crypto after was âin or at In of all the crypto custodians have the of international in policy proposals as on crypto custody MiCA to policy of the the and the crypto the custodians the assets and their clientsâ against and in the of and they provide as well as and custody must and their clientsâ they the crypto-assets their own assets, and reuse of clientsâ assets with the and the safekeeping is they safeguards and and the clients the custodian provide the and the of the reuse of clientsâ assets, as well as all other In the custody and of and to a of or even of The and the requirements on the safekeeping and of clientsâ on of custodians must have own or in to the clients in the of asset or or of the The the of an the and and In the of crypto its the of and in In to the of of a series of cases and against the crypto most and Even today, when Bitcoin as the most prominent digital asset experiences an upturn in the Spring of to Bitcoin may most large-volume crypto-assets (such as Ether, Tether, USCD) trade below their record highs of in the case of and below in all to in crypto, on an In turn, services crypto stablecoin service on and crypto-asset and custody have The of crypto the for a even The for in MiCA the crypto-asset services in a in Article 3(1)(16) MiCA. of services is the of custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clientsâ Article this is it not and MiCA not that is the main or MiCAâs custody to it is that the and administration services for crypto-assets on behalf of needs an to may to a crypto-asset or an of an for a an a service investment or investment fund of MiCA provides for general applicable to all CASPs, MiCA for certain the scope of MiCA in the custody below we discuss the most Article MiCA a of the in Article MiCA provides the with to crypto-asset services in to in all of the is MiCA. of in to three the of of the EU financial other than the to MiCA to and MiCAâs of MiCA is a on It not where financial services Article In turn, MiCAâs not where a digital asset as a financial or a to two of In of the MiCAâs scope is to and the scope of MiCA that not as and that MiCAâs of not In turn, for investment the for in financial instruments the for investment and MiCAâs on of the on investment under EU financial the custody of assets on behalf of investment is to particular specified in Article We focus in this article on MiCAâs custody and the with other in in particular it is to identify a to crypto-assets have they not the scope of or of service providers providing services in of such crypto-assets MiCA. that must with MiCA even where and MiCA not We this with to crypto it the as to what in to This means that for and the if a crypto-asset service is the qualification and degree of of the whether to custody providers requires the the to in the as is the of a in Article MiCA that service means legal or other or is the provision of one or crypto-asset services to clients on a This is the that the scope of MiCA the provision of crypto-asset services in a that the on two First, the of a or that we whether the service is a on a MiCA not the general as or one that is to a crypto the second the of whether or not the service is or we that this is not a of for MiCAâs scope (ie MiCA of whether the service is or and that service provision is one of the of the crypto have a to with the regulation if the service is an that is with and with Bitcoin as the that we that an application, it legal or that is the for the of the a out In EU financial if the service is on a and the (ie out for clients of This is crypto custody Article MiCA that the provision of and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clientsâ means the safekeeping or on behalf of of crypto-assets or of the means of to such where applicable in the of issues this legislative First, MiCA that crypto-assets in a that was to that a crypto-asset is and its on the in the it that custody the safekeeping or of the means of to such where applicable in the of The is that the custody the of the service the holding of crypto-assets to clients or the means of to such in case the of the crypto-assets in the crypto-assets or the means of to to the of the crypto-asset service We what of a crypto-asset means for an asset where the of the crypto-asset on the of the same the is on and the to the of This the to the second in Article of the means of to such In their clientsâ means of the crypto-assets to those a or of of a a is The is to a account that it to other the account or the is the of the or the in a that the to and the account a crypto is a digital that MiCA not what the This is an when it to providers under the of Article providers services those a or of MiCAâs This is that a of and one of the where clients not have to the crypto-assets or The custodian for the crypto-assets they to in The safekeeping and of the and assets to the the other of the custody where the of the MiCAâs that the service is the of and not provide a crypto-asset service under The and their own to This a with a as where the is the the the and the needs to it the to their and the their assets that custody the in the and the is the cases and to to the in the is This in a of custody as providers with that of the to the the is the to the of where with the in the case of the the three to three for The may the at the that they the in the may when In the of the to its the is not the the to the the trust that the not that The second of where with the to a cases of or These or a of or is to In the and the or the same We a where the or the the or the service to a for to the and of the and the of this is the the third cases of and where the the of or to a on their The or that not for and not have to clientsâ or the or for in case the clients of their or We the on the clients that on the custody where clients the that the means of or of or not to the assets, the MiCA In MiCA In turn, we that MiCA to the of custody where all (ie where all the service and not to the second or third on the of the or its is to the In the service a of that to a of assets, MiCA where the is not for the of Article MiCA. that not a under EU financial MiCA a This is of for service providers that to as with to and and and and well as other the to provide crypto-asset services of to their These to the for the specified in Article to the of the service to their To and the that a under EU financial not to that they have as of their licensing if that is they must that this is the case in their that to provide crypto-asset services throughout the the of a or the to provide that provide crypto-asset services on a not to have a physical in the of a MiCA the and clients in of and a to that to investment MiCA general applicable to all The most of requirements for crypto custodians the and and and asset and to in EU financial Article MiCA that and in with the of their clients and This provision a of requirements on and of of the that clientsâ the clients have been and have their to in a The on the one a that the of with other in the of MiCA that must not clientsâ assets on their own accounts. the other it limits to crypto in value clients to the CASPs, as at the of the Crypto at Article MiCA on is on Article and Article and the The is to ensure the of the requirements and financial supervision even where the on not service services or to third for the of operational all to operational for all of their MiCA. in to ensure that the in the of their the and their their their and the for their the Crypto account for the of such in financial and of the operational of their DeFi and the to These ensure that the robustness of the licensing of The to Article MiCA is when a service on is a third MiCAâs and when that third operational custody as a crypto-asset service is to as a that third must provide of custody the of custody is of the means of of operational the of the in the of lost or or the on a with in to to crypto-assets other than those that the custodian their own often in and to or where services with or the as of the and to in the case of they to regulation as a if the is in the We account for that in the same as we custody in general at the service a of that to a of assets, MiCA Article MiCA requires custody the of a is a that is to an of their under applicable the or of those service the of crypto-asset service providers to out an to their To the needs to with The that crypto not in the the of in clientsâ Article provides for on crypto one of the safekeeping of the of Article MiCA and is the general applicable to all not all provide safekeeping in to as they (ie to in cases where custody with to crypto-assets is and MiCA in MiCA crypto custody then as a of safekeeping under Article to Article that custody as a of safekeeping for financial instruments on behalf of investment the scope of Article MiCA then not crypto crypto crypto and and services not the scope of MiCA for their main clientsâ assets as an to Article and adequate to the ownership of in the of the and to the of clientsâ crypto-assets for their own The on what is to the of crypto-assets under the applicable in the of the DeFi or out of The second to the widespread where crypto clientsâ assets as their for to losses crypto investments in other of their crypto investment or to in clientsâ assets and then to Article MiCA on custody services requires that must the and an with clients in the The most to the may to in cases of the custody a of the the and to the and the applicable The custody policy must at ensuring the safekeeping or of the means of to the This to the of custodians clientsâ to crypto-assets as well as or in in the of the is to on the This provide for of the of clientsâ to provide for the of crypto-assets to as well as of the assets the assets on the distributed This for that in the of the the assets Article MiCA a provision to the and other clientsâ the clientsâ crypto-assets or on the and to the of the at the of the of that or to the they to for on the the may or may not to that a may have in to the or of the the not the or a to the it may the This the focus of the MiCA a in Article the custodian is for their clientsâ This in to the and of most crypto custody providers that or to the of to a of their clientsâ The is all the is not on or on the of the custodian their that the of is in three First, the is for the of crypto-assets or the means of to assets MiCA not other that the clients may such as the of or is to and under the the is at the market value of the lost crypto-asset at the the Article MiCA may function as a in an a of and to what a on the of the and the to their clientsâ if the custodian not to custody to crypto-assets on the ledger to their clients the of whether the clients the custodian to on the asset whether the assets in lost than or The same of is of when the and other of the or other to crypto-assets and the custodian to their as a of the crypto-asset or a a the In this Article and the to in their clientsâ provide a in the of and Even to is what an that is to the custodian, that is where the is not is that in the of the that the or may the is what the the custodian to (ie the custodian must organized and what they must on such This may that the custodian for an an a or under Article MiCA an of In this regard, it is that MiCA to that that they not or (ie this this to to than the to this in the of a a for to the to the with the and their own for such and to in the of the for losses to their own such as or of whether they on a or a and provide an of and MiCAâs requirements for crypto the and of the MiCA crypto custody in turn, we out on and asset the of the article, we two for the of MiCAâs crypto custody We the âinstitutional we whether MiCA that the crypto custodians soundly and whether that the is We focus on the operational to crypto The second is called herein âasset Under that we the to the or value of the crypto-asset is of regulation in the of and the of the custodian, the the DeFi or third as the case we focus on the of MiCA the legal The âinstitutional resilienceâ MiCAâs robustness in of the in the and in the context of the Crypto Winter. this MiCA is as a MiCA that the custodian is a soundly organized and to of and operational their own assets their clientsâ assets and the reuse of the for their own The clientsâ as well as the of the the same even where the and the may not where service providers have the to or to MiCAâs and We three to MiCAâs and The of MiCA is its what is of the is not We herein that on the of as and may the of MiCAâs custody We in the as that MiCA to the that they as an the of this to as MiCA. may this against the of MiCA its scope that provide crypto-asset services in a or for may have when it to for the application, and to in a international where the of MiCAâs to the of We have out in the as a of that the scope of MiCAâs custody in Article MiCA on a of The same out in the to this when DeFi the scope of and when This is all the a the of MiCA and its to regulate crypto is at to the of crypto-asset such as and out of they not provide crypto-asset services custody or custody with such as MiCA with services is even the to under 5 MiCA to the of clients The provision of services as a of have been a for In the of and the the of crypto-assets custody on behalf of clients as an service to and in to the of crypto-assets to and in the of that the of crypto-assets is a to Article MiCA not MiCA about what it where custody is of the a the to the of clients for than that for under Article MiCA. where reuse on the what limits with to the to to as a for a the legal requirements for a to the The to MiCA the of Article where and must they may to of the that the crypto market is in out of crypto is one of financial have when their crypto is in the as a and observed is to the main the scope of To the that most crypto, and not to the of the crypto market in and crypto, and large, a In this it is that MiCA not a of crypto custodians may under custodians the it is that the losses may to an where the is to clients for To this is a crypto clients and it may the and the crypto In the of that in the of of in To the of we to account the and of of of These to the to ensure and These have been to as for and than the that the under Article MiCA. to EU even crypto of the to the Article provides that the in the for all of their MiCA. The in the of their the and their their their and the for their of the the the the is not to MiCA as as it is not the the EU to of under to all or most of the losses even if it is for its (such as the to and when to crypto service even when MiCA that in the case of issues to the of the safekeeping not sufficiently MiCA. in in cases of of the safekeeping it is established that the assets the assets, the assets, as well as assets to other clients of the third We not find the same to the case in MiCA. This is not the that the needs to certain and all the and provision for the in its MiCA requires of the assets the it lacks on crypto custody to EU investment fund In with to asset the MiCA is as to the First, whether it requires (ie with or whether (ie means of a record-keeping whether the custodian on the of the the in to its own MiCA not safeguards for the not a the that a on the not that the assets in the that the legal in legal and to the the is one of asset we it in that context in the MiCA we less that MiCA provides the with to asset (ie a that the of the assets when on the distributed ledger when the token-issuer or DeFi or when the crypto custodian, or such as the other or to MiCA the and of the token-issuer in the context of and in its and it the or on the distributed ledger for all of crypto-assets in two MiCA provides for the of Article and the to the of the clientsâ such in with the and its the to with the case that the custodian, or third find in malfunctions or affecting the clientsâ and MiCA provide the to the assets and to a custody in the of the the to for the to clientsâ assets the own the of asset reuse for the own and the of the for asset the of asset requires context the on crypto-assets a of the of financial regulation to ensure asset that we on asset after the of MiCA. to the of the of the asset on the and the of other In this the of legal on the and of the that the the crypto-assets in under the applicable MiCA requires crypto custodians to the ownership of their clients in the of the and where it provides for a solid for their it that it for the of and for crypto-assets an of on the means of the to the ownership is undermined when it is not a that the clients have ownership the crypto-assets and whether their is or after all the is and a to legal In turn, have to the widespread legal ownership and in digital it to for clients in the requirements on a In the of a legal and the custodians to provide in their and that the an the provide for To the regulation for and in and MiCA for this with to of and to and and and of to their when is at This asset even where is the and operational of on the of the and the This MiCA on other crypto-assets of other assets MiCA the and of the custodian and their clients in the of the own or provide asset third parties, such as the other and for the of assets in the case of or of the other MiCA the to clientsâ assets the own assets (ie on the and (ie means of a record-keeping This the of for and the assets of clients with their own MiCA not on a on the This for the of (ie to clientsâ crypto-assets the of crypto clients lacks the of where the of is when the safekeeping is and under In turn, crypto clients not to the of to the of the other clients of the custodian, assets the same that have about other and have means of out or of This to legal the of the token-holdersâ in the crypto for the of assets in the case of or of MiCA not provide for the that the and the of the assets in case of of the on as for the of assets in the case of or of the custodian or third such as the Article MiCA the reuse of clientsâ assets for the own account and MiCA requires that the clientsâ assets the and the of for In of that of asset with the of an function as custodian, or we find that MiCAâs on the legal requirements for asset an of protection, with one of the main safeguards that when the custodian all and to the and their the custodian is not to their clientsâ third or of other they have legal to the clients and their in legal third under MiCA. the to clients the legal is with one that the registration on behalf of their clients on the distributed this at with of on the safekeeping and and even where is the in crypto the of legal on behalf of clients MiCA lacks the and of of investment their clientsâ and under most legal in as to where against the fund that the financial regulation on investment have for the of investment in a regulation provides a for crypto MiCA to MiCAâs on custody and provide a for to regulate In this regard, MiCAâs focus is on what we have called herein âinstitutional resilienceâ, ensuring that the custodian is soundly organized and governed and must not reuse clientsâ assets on their own accounts. Under MiCAâs rules, all crypto custodians and to of asset and operational The on the the to clientsâ At the same time, MiCA lacks strength on âasset resilienceâ (ie providing safeguards for cases where the custodian, third parties, the or DeFi application, as the case may be, encounter difficulties). This is to the of where the of the asset on the and the of other and to the that MiCA not regulate and the crypto-assets in To the for and for this of other crypto-assets In this regard, in of protection, regulation where a in ensuring asset that for of other service and of clientsâ in legal against third
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have introduced novel mechanisms to authenticate and trade digital art, fostering a vibrantand dynamic marketplace by leveraging blockchaintechnology. However, the rise of NFTs has also prompted a host of legaland ethical considerations that necessitate careful scrutiny. This research paper provides an in-depth exploration of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) as an emerging form of intellectual property that is transforming the digital art landscape.The paperbegins by elucidating the principles behind NFTs and their significance to digital art, elucidating how these tokens redefinetraditional notions of ownership. It scrutinizes the role of blockchain technology in protecting digital art and the distinctiveadvantages it provides, such as transparency and immutability.The paper then delves into the critical legal implications,particularly focusing on copyright issues and the evolving regulatory environment, highlighting the dichotomy between theownership of NFTs and the copyright of the underlying digital artwork. It conducts a comparative legislative analysis ofIndia, the USA, and the UK, indicating the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that can navigate the global anddecentralized nature of NFT transactions.The paper engages with ethical concerns, including environmental impact, economic inequality, and artist attribution,underscoring the necessity for balancing innovation with responsibility.Finally, it provides recommendations for regulatoryapproaches and discusses future implications, emphasizing the need for clarity, balance, and international cooperation inlegislation, alongside the importance of continuous dialogue and research. This paper lays the groundwork for furtherinvestigations into the fast-evolving world of NFTs and their wider societal impacts.
New technologies are rapidly ushering new challenges for and dimensions of the interfaces amongst intangible cultural heritage (ICH), copyright, and technology policy. The role of community looms larger than ever before with greater access and more sophisticated tools to communicate and create. This chapter will survey some of the emerging issues in this area as well the early lawsuits. The analysis will feature areas of virtual space where communities have strong voices in shaping the identity and evolution of those communities, such as massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
The rise of NFTs seems to open new horizons for the exploitation of works in the digital world. This, of course, does not come without challenges. A number of IP infringement disputes are now coming to the forefront; minting NFTs without the consent of the creator of the original work and malicious use of a trade mark as an NFT without the permission of the brand owners are but a few examples. In light of the absence of any judicial guidance, this chapter aims to reflect on how the use of NFTs can trigger copyright or trade mark infringements and examine to what extent NFTs marketplaces can be liable for IP infringements that take place within their platforms, taking into consideration a line of case law from the CJEU and EU legal instruments.
Some issues on the horizon may pose novel types of questions, especially relating to new technologies or new applications of existing technologies. We could not include those issues in this volume for lack of sufficient data from the field, e.g., no real-world dispute, or no ruling from a court. But it is worth mentioning a selection of potential cases to come: we chose artificial intelligence, non-fungible tokens, and the metaverse, as it is likely that intellectual propertyârelated cases and litigations in these domains will soon become very relevant, with repercussions that may be felt by the whole food industry.
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Bitcoin did not suddenly appear in November 2008, at the heart of the subprime crisis. It has matured over a decade, notably through the exchanges of Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, and others, with key moments such as the publication of &ldquo;The God Protocols&rdquo; by Szabo in 1997. The theological analogy developed in the introduction to that text, which theorizes smart contracts, raises the question: simple facetiousness, geek irony, or a clue to religious references? By analysing not only the founding texts but also the discussions in the Extropian or cryptography mailing lists in which Szabo and Finney took part, this article seeks to answer whether religious references (vocabulary, imagination, symbolism, structure) may have played a role in the genesis of Bitcoin. &nbsp;
The objective of this article is to evaluate countriesâ approaches to the taxation of crypto staking by testing the consistency of current domestic rules and guidance against the technological substance of the same phenomenon. After the outline of the economics of crypto staking, the author provides evidence of the debate in tax literature and the regulatory landscape across selected countries. Subsequently, the research explores the technology features of staking and its fundamental variables of legal characterization, income qualification, and timing and value of income recognition. This way, the interdisciplinary methodology aims to outline a model of taxation reflecting the technological substance of crypto staking and test it against the current tax framework at the domestic level. The results of the analysis process show that the approach to the taxation of staking rewards does not ensure consistency with the technological substance in all of the selected countries. National tax authorities rely more on policy considerations aimed at maximizing revenue collection when developing guidance in the field than on the idea of coherent tax treatment in accordance with the technological substance and the legal characterization of the different types of staking activities. Tax & Technology, Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies, Proof-of-stake, Staking rewards, Direct staking, Indirect staking, Legal characterization, Income qualification, Time of income recognition