Con l'introduzione dei NFTs si è affermato un nuovo modo di collezionare beni digitali (digital asset), caratterizzati dalla loro scarsità , unicità e specifica individualità economico-sociale che non ne consente la sostituzione e intercambiabilità in rete con altri beni dello stesso genere.In questo campo si è fatta strada quella che è denominata arte crittografica (cryptoart) un genere di arte digitale correlata alla tecnologia blockchain e agli smart contracts.Questo repentino cambiamento, accentuatosi con l'evoluzione tecnologica e con il frequente utilizzo di Internet, ha introdotto uno sfidante dibattito sui principali profili giuridici, regolamentari e contrattuali legati al mondo di NFT e criptoarte.With the introduction of NFTs, in recent years, a new way of collecting digital assets has emerged.These assets are characterized by their scarcity, uniqueness, and specific economic-social individuality that does not allow their replacement and online interchangeability with other goods of the same kind.In this field, what is called cryptographic art (also called cryptoart) has made its way, i.e., a genre of digital art related to blockchain technology and smart contracts.This sudden change, accentuated by technological evolution and the frequent use of the Internet, has introduced a challenging debate on the main legal, regulatory, and contractual issues related to the world of NFTs and cryptoart.Sommario: 1. Introduzione.-2.NFT e l'arte.-3.I profili giuridici e regolatori dei NFTs.-3.1.Gli elementi distintivi dei NFTs.-3.2.I potenziali rischi per i titolari dei diritti.-3.3.Alcuni precedenti significativi.-4.Le regole dei marketplace.
Abstract The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has made it increasingly difficult to protect and enforce intellectual property (IP) rights in a digital landscape where content can be easily accessed and utilized without clear authorization. First, we explain why LLMs make it uniquely difficult to protect and enforce IP, creating a âtragedy of the commons.â Second, drawing on theories of polycentric governance, we argue that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) could be effective tools for addressing the complexities of digital IP rights. Third, we provide an illustrative case study that shows how NFTs can facilitate dispute resolution of IP on the blockchain.
Blockchain technology supporting cryptocurrency transactions is one of the most critical innovations of this decade. Establishing a legal identity on blockchain, however, is fraught with uncertainty. In the 1990s, the internet faced a similar set of issues, which were resolved through the ICANN dispute resolution system. This Article asserts that blockchain technology urgently needs a similar cohesive approach to NFT domains. This Article will explore trademark issues with non-fungible tokens (NFTs), specifically NFT domains. It begins by exploring the fundamental structure of NFTs by demystifying the technology and showing how NFTs contrast with other currency regimes. Increased usage of NFTs has created novel intellectual property law issues. This Article then examines the history of unauthorized registration and use of domains identical or similar to trademarks, known as cybersquatting. Understanding the historical evolution of the internet domain name system is a crucial step in comprehending the risks associated with NFT domains disputes. Traditional internet domain names are ultimately managed and overseen by a centralized authority, ICANN, which is a private nonprofit organization that sets the policy for the global Domain Name System. Unlike internet domain names, where ICANN developed a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and collision occurrence management framework, NFT domains have the potential to create domain collisions, both between extensions on the blockchain and with conventional domain name extensions. As the blockchain ecosystem continues to grow, its unregulated nature may increase the number of disputes and stoke mistrust in the system. This Article will compare two principal naming standards, centralized and decentralized. Despite the challenges of coordination in the decentralized world of blockchain, I argue that in the absence of law regulations, an effective system of governance is possible through self-regulatory organizations. Given the specific characteristics of the blockchain environment, I propose to establish a specialized blockchain entity, a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), that would deal with the governance of NFT domains and disputes relating to their collisions and those arising from their intersection with trademarks.
NFT makers are creating NFTs integrated with IP that are being purchased for exorbitant amounts. On the flip side, NFT purchasers are buying up NFTs for these high prices because they may think they are buying the underlying rights. This "Money for Nothing" problem - taking its name from the Dire Straits song - is what this paper terms as the "IP-NFT" Conundrum that explains the basic misunderstanding NFT consumers have about the IP rights (or lack thereof) they are acquiring when they acquire NFTs. Part I of this paper will focus on an overview of NFTs and the lack of IP rights associated with NFTs, or the âIP-NFT Conundrumâ. This section will include a discussion of how NFTs are being defined with respect to a series of trademark cases, copyright law and patents, which is covered in other literature as well as forthcoming papers from the author. Part II will then outline the current marketplace of NFT trading platforms and the âMoney for Nothingâ problem that exists where a mismatch or imbalance is created between consumer understanding of what they are wanting to purchase from a NFT and what is actually really being purchased. Part III will finally discuss potential solutions to the âMoney for Nothingâ IP-NFT Conundrum problem â e.g., NFTs embedded with smart contracts that automatically embed IP rights upon sale, stronger educational initiatives involving NFTs, or the creation of platforms (or integration of rules and policies on existing platforms) that will facilitate the ideal transfer of IP rights for NFT transactions.
The First Amendment has long provided protections for artistsâ creative expression and is a fundamental right for all United States citizens. However, with the rise of a predominantly digital world, those protections begin to blur with the introduction of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Artistic creation often stems from an inspired source, and sometimes, that inspiration may come from registered intellectual property, specifically trademarks. Trademarks are everywhere we look, so it is not unusual for artists to be inspired by the logos, images, colors, figures, or symbols that are featured on billboards, magazine covers, or everyday items. When these trademarks are used in third-party artistic works, the situation often results in trademark owners gearing up to protect their marks and artists invoking their First Amendment rights to protect their creations. NFTs have become an extremely lucrative market, presenting a new route for artists to explore their creative ideas and an appealing business opportunity for luxury brands to enter into a unique space. Courts and practitioners must focus their attention on the rise of NFTs and trademark-related issues as litigation gradually increases. There has been a longstanding precedent formed by Rogers v. Grimaldi that gives courts some guidance on how to balance First Amendment protections and trademark rights, but with the introduction of NFTs, circuit courts are interpreting and applying the Rogers test in various ways resulting in inconsistent outcomes. This calls for another look at the Rogers test and a reconsideration of its design to balance First Amendment and trademark interests. This Article examines the nuances of First Amendment and trademark law to determine the effectiveness of the traditional Rogers test. This Article concludes that while courts have applied Rogers in unique ways, the emergence of NFTs requires a uniform approach that can only be accomplished by reconsidering Rogersâs application to the digital world. This Article encourages courts to include a more fact-intensive analysis in Rogers cases so fact finders can distinguish between expressive artistic works and ordinary consumer products while discerning the worksâ true motives.
NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, present a valuable case study of the ways in which courts fill in the gaps where technological development gets ahead of regulation. In this Article, I offer a descriptive account of the first three years of litigation involving NFTs to come before federal district courts. These early cases implicate intellectual property and âtraditionalâ property disputes, fraud and breach of contract claims, securities regulation, alleged criminal conduct, and service of process issues. This Article will be of particular interest to practitioners advising clients in the crypto industry and to legal scholars teaching or writing about law and innovation in general or crypto in particular. NFTs caught many consumers, courts, and lawmakers off guard in 2021 when they started selling for vertiginous prices despite the fact that they do not, in certain key respects, exist. Some predict that NFTs will come to assume an increasingly central role in art and commerce, while others see NFTs as an unfortunate trend that has already passed its expiration date. Whatever the NFTâs fate, it will not be the last disruptive technology to capture the public imagination and excite the market, with enthusiasm fast outpacing lawmakersâ ability to make sense of the innovation and propose sensible guardrails for its use. This Article tells the story of one such technology that has challenged settled assumptions about art, ownership, and value.
The aim of this diploma thesis is to analyse the individual legal aspects of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) phenomenon in terms of current and upcoming legislation. The diploma thesis documents the technological aspects of this phenomenon and its legal specifics and then identifies and interprets the application of legal frameworks that currently affect its use. These include the legal qualification of NFT, aspects of consumer protection and aspects of copyright law. The text of the diploma thesis contains a theoretical assessment to the extent necessary for the purposes of further analysis of the phenomenon.
The rapid digital tech growth has led to Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and Metaverse rise. NFTs are blockchain-based certificates for virtual ownership. Metaverse offers 3D virtual reality for shared experiences, shaping new social and interactive norms. Business, like investing and ownership, thrives within it. However, Indonesia lacks comprehensive regulations for its legal aspects, potentially affecting user rights and copyright. The purpose of this research is to conduct an analysis, especially regarding metaversion regulations, especially in relation to intellectual property so that it becomes reference material for the public and policy makers. Research method using qualitative methods. Research results related to copyright protect the creator, transfer of ownership with purchase. Due to the limited regulation of NFTs, legal protection, especially of intellectual property rights, is very important. Registering each NFT artwork under IP rights ensures legal protection for all created works. Research also shows that there is a gap where the existing law only relates to Intellectual Property but does not yet address the metaverse world which in fact is a virtual world, so this study is very important to support the sustainability of intellectual property in the current metaverse world.
This article analyzes the Non-Fungible Token, abbreviated NFT, which is a digital certificate that can be used to verify who owns certain assets in the world of crypto art, where this certificate represents ownership of authentic works of art. Non-Fungible Token (NFT) as a digital asset as well as several legal issues that arise related to NFTs, especially in the field of intellectual property law including copyright protection and legal construction of copyright ownership of NFTs. This study uses a normative legal research method with a statutory approach. This study aims to find out how the legal problems in the practice of intellectual property development commercialization of non-fungible tokens (NFT) and how to protect works of art in the form of Indonesian non-fungible tokens (NFT). The results of this study indicate that although in Indonesia there are no specific regulations that explicitly regulate Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT), the rights of creators of works are generally protected by Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright, but from an intellectual point of view property development, NFT presents the potential for the development and commercialization of works through digital media that has a wide reach and provides more optimal monetization opportunities.
As novel digital assets built on blockchain technology with a wide range of applications in the arts, entertainment, fashion and marketing for companies, brand owners and individuals, Non-Fungible Tokens (hereinafter âNFTsâ) can be anything such as videos, images, audio, documents and even video games. When new disruptive technologies emerge and shake existing rules, regulators must identify inherent risks and develop policy strategies to balance the various interests that innovation touches upon. As the technology matures and its adoption spreads, some of the legal challenges faced by NFTs, as an emerging crypto token, are highlighted in this text as well as the authorâs opinion on how to resolve them from a regulatory standpoint. Both the academic literature and several court cases have already tackled the underlying difficulties of regulating blockchain and the particulars of NFTs. Despite NFTs offering a very profitable new market for artists and creators, there are perils and concerns regarding, namely, intellectual property protections, personal property considerations and money laundering vulnerabilities which must be addressed by the legal rules governing blockchain. This paper endeavours to provide an analysis of this triad of problems at a time where there is no comprehensive legal act, in a European and international context, properly addressing what the technology behind NFTs is doing. As such, it intends to contribute to the global issue of defining the right legal rules to properly address them within the digital asset ecosystem of NFTs. Blockchain, Crypto Assets, Digital Assets, Cryptocurrency, Distributed Ledger Technology, DLT, Metaverse, Tokens, Utility tokens, Non-Fungible Tokens, NFTs, Tokenized art, Smart Contracts, Blockchain regulation, NFT regulation, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Trademark, Anti-money laundering, Terrorist financing, AML-CFT, Fifth AMLCFT Directive, GAFI, MiCA
In the ever-evolving digital landscape, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have emerged as a disruptive force, challenging the traditional paradigms of digital asset ownership and control. As Fortnow and Terry aptly highlight, NFTs seek to redefine the relationship between creatives, users, and digital artwork, a relationship historically dominated by powerful online intermediaries operating under the access model [1].The prevailing access model, underpinned by a blend of technological, legal, and market dynamics, has largely curtailed the ability of creators and individual internet users to exert meaningful control over digital assets. Instead, these assets are predominantly governed by centralized intermediaries, offering seemingly unlimited access. While this model boasts advantages, such as a robust rights management system ensuring IP security and user convenience [4], it is not without its criticisms. The most glaring concern for creators is the 'value gap' -the disparity between the value generated by intermediaries and the compensation received by content creators [3]. This concern was so profound that it catalysed significant reforms in the EU's digital platform regulations in the form of the DSM Directive and, most recently, the DSA Act [2].Centralized intermediaries, with their overarching influence, have not only skewed the value distribution but have also left users vulnerable. The tentative nature of access rights means users can be deprived of their digital assets without warning, rendering them powerless against potential misuse by these intermediaries [5].This special issue of the journal underscores the profound impact of NFTs on Intellectual Property law. We are privileged to feature contributions that delve deep into this relationship from diverse legal perspectives. Dr. Ioanna Lapatoura offers a compelling analysis of the intricate relationship between NFTs and trademark law, using the MetaBirkins case as a focal point. Daniel Becker and Aylton Gonçalves, on the other hand, explore the implications of NFTs within the Brazilian legal framework. However, the legal ramifications of NFTs extend beyond IP law. In that context, Matteo Alessandro challenges traditional notions of property in light of NFTs, while Marica Ciantar examines the transformative potential of NFTs and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in reshaping collective organizational governance. Prof. Dr.Yulia S. Kharitonova exploredlegal issues of decentralized services in the context of utility NFTs. J.-G. A. Hanneman researched DAOs and AI-based Smart Contracts. The darker aspects of NFT transactions are also addressed, with Ass Prof. Dr. Dimitrios Kafteranis, Dr. Huseyin Unozkan and Prof. Dr. Umut Turksen elucidating their alignment with financial crime regulations. Moreover, the discourse on NFTs in private law is expanded upon by Dr. Elena Tzoulia, who highlights their intersection with the secondary digital consumer protection acquis in the EU.This issue serves as a testament to the multifaceted legal challenges and opportunities presented by NFTs. Through the insightful contributions of our esteemed authors, we hope to foster a deeper understanding and stimulate further discourse on this pivotal topic.
In early 2023 a United States (US) court ruled that a crypto art collection named âMetabirkinsâ, depictingthe famous âBirkinâ bag of Hermès, infringedtrademark rights. This ruling conferred Hermès the power to ban the commercial exploitation of Metabirkins by their designer, through a permanent injunction order. By the time that order was issued, however, several Metabirkins had already been sold to third parties. Taking this case as a point of reference, thispaper examinescrypto art transactions from the perspective of EU intellectual property (IP) and consumer protection law. First, it clarifies the conditions under which the purchasers and licensees of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) fall under the consumer concept. Then, it examines whether the critical facts would constitute a trademark infringement in the EU, and what would have been the impact of such an infringement on the rightful use of the NFTs by their right-holders. Finally, the paper discussesDirective 2019/770 in protectingconsumersand itsapplicability in the blockchain ecosystem.
The paper examines the concept of ownership and its potential application to digital assets, particularly Non-Fungible Tokens (âNFTsâ). Technological advancements which allow the creation, storage, and sale of unique digital assets in a purely digital manner have raised many questions about the concept of âdigital ownershipâ. However, the legal frameworks regulating the ownership, sale, and legal classification of digital assets have not evolved at the same paceas technology. This leads to legal uncertainty in the digital landscape, and weakened protection for the users of this technology, particularly in the European Union (âEUâ). Although the concept of digital property has been discussed theoretically, practical recommendations for the implementation of this concept are still scarce. This paper discusses the concept of digital property after providing a contextual understanding of NFTs and the technology behind them. Finally, the author offersrecommendations for a harmonised EU-level framework for the legal classification of NFTs, and for the concept of digital property.
The digital revolution has launched myriad new technologies in the field of art and cultural heritage law, including digital art, NFTs (non-fungible tokens), artificial intelligence (AI)-generated art, virtual reality and reality augmentation, online viewing rooms and auctions, holograms, immersive experiences, and more. As a $67.8 billion industry, the art market is a global driver of innovation, international collaboration, and national economies, given its cross-border transactions. However, given the extremely rapid development of these new technologies, regulators have struggled to keep pace and implement legal measures that are fit for purpose in this field. Limited oversight has resulted in several claims that have the potential to change the legal landscape. For instance, claims over the theft/misappropriation of NFTs and the related fraud and money laundering that may ensue, as well as a recent class action copyright infringement suit against the creators of a popular AI algorithm and infringement claims over immersive installation and light technologies, demonstrate how new ways of thinking are required to assess cases involving digital property (distinguished from other types of non-tangible property). Moreover, the US Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling on fair use within the copyright context, which will be relied upon in the future to determine whether (and to what extent) the appropriation of existing copyrighted material is permitted. This includes both the digital use of physical artworks and the use of born-digital works. Although jurisprudential decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, factual patterns involving online media, digital art, and related technologies could serve as guidance for legislators and other decision-makers when considering what limits should be imposed on Web 3.0. This article will focus on recent US-based claims and regulations and dovetail with existing art market regulations in this jurisdiction (e.g., anti-money-laundering statutes) to determine their impact on new technologies, whether directly or indirectly. Finally, the article highlights ongoing trends and preoccupations to provide an overview of the shifting legal landscape.
In this paper, the author aims to analyse the types of crimes committed in cyberspace against creators and owners of NFT. Non-fungible tokens have been favored by the art world (also known as the crypto-art market) for a few years now. They attract numerous digital art creators and cryptocurrency investors. The token is recorded in a blockchain and is used to certify authenticity and ownership. Therefore, the art world is particularly interested in this solution. However, as practice shows, NFT isnât flawless, and cybercriminals exploit its flaws. Using methods known from typical cybercrimes, they modify their modus operandi accordingly to the crypto-art market practice. In this paper, the author describes examples of breaches of copyright and intellectual property law, as well as examples of the forgery of NFT. In addition, other crimes, such as fraud and theft of NFT, are described. Types of those crimes are, e.g., bypass security systems, phishing, and installation of malware
Off-chain disputes regarding transactions executed on-chain are unavoidable. However, a prerequisite to effectively settling such disputes is the identification of the applicable law as well as of the competent jurisdiction. While some transactions merely operationalise off-chain relations between parties knowing each other, many result from interactions between pseudonymous individuals at unknown locations. The present contribution investigates the concrete consequences of pseudonymity on European Private International Law, especially principles to determine the applicable law. In this respect, it clarifies the numerous factors affecting the extent of pseudonymity, ranging from the type of distributed ledger on which the transaction occurred to the possible centralized intermediaries involved therein. The issue ought to be analysed having these factors in mind, as some effectively wither the veil of pseudonymity. Based on the preceding clarification, the contribution analyses the concrete extent to which pseudonymity renders some principles of European Private International Law ill-fit and as a result, difficult to apply in practice.
Crypto assets can be defined broadly as âcryptographically secured digital representations of value which can be transferred, stored or traded electronicallyâ by the use of distributed ledger technology or a similar technology. They introduce new challenges to Private International Law due to their novel, complex, fast-evolving and cross-border nature. The purpose of this chapter is to critically examine some of the key applicable law questions regarding crypto assets. The chapter first gives an overview of crypto assets, highlighting their key features. It next addresses challenges around characterisation of crypto assets as money or legal tender, and property, and reflects on the legal implications of this characterisation. The chapter then discusses freedom of choice and its operation and limitations; explores considerations around suitable objective connecting factors; and, aims to shed light on the possible ways forward in terms of policy choices in determining the law applicable to crypto assets.
Shenzhen Golden Idea Cultural and Creative Co., Ltd. v Hangzhou Bigverse Technology Co., Ltd. is the worldâs first completed case about copyright infringement of non-fungible token (NFT) works in which a final judgment has been rendered. In this case, the Chinese court explored many legal issues related to NFT works based on an in-depth investigation of NFTsâ transaction process and business model. First, it clarified the legal nature of NFT works. Second, it made explicit judgments on the rights and obligations of related parties such as users, internet platforms, NFT distributors and copyright owners. Third, it clarified the duty of care and legal responsibilities of NFT trading platforms. Lastly, it affirmed the measure of disconnecting the link and blackholing the address of the uploaded NFT information to maximize the effect of stopping the dissemination of infringing content.
This study examined the technical characteristics of NFT, such as the concept of NFT, its history, and the distinction between NFT and NFT contents (Chapter 2). And as a preliminary review to discuss the legal issues of NFT, the productibility and the copyrightibility of NFT and NFT contents were reviewed (Chapter 3). NFT includes NFT metadata and NFT content. Under the current law, the productibility of NFT metadata and NFT content is denied, but NFT metadata has a high possibility of scarcity, exclusive control, and independent trading, so it was argued that property law protection could be possible with future amendments to the law or changes in interpretation theory. Copyrightibility of NFT metadata will be denied, but it is determined that NFT content can be recognized as copyrightable according to its contents. Based on the discussion in Chapter 3, the copyright law issues raised by NFTs were reviewed (Chapter 4). First, we looked at NFT-related copyright dispute cases that are becoming a reality, and selected and examined representative cases of digital copyright infringement that are expected to have significant implications in NFT-related litigation, focusing on relatively recent cases. Based on the review of these cases, aspects of copyright infringement that are expected to occur during the transaction and creation of NFTs are analyzed and listed in detail from the objective and subjective perspectives. Specifically, the series of processes of creating and storing NFTs without the permission of the copyright holder is highly likely to include a commercial use process, and therefore may constitute infringement of Authorâs Property Rights and Moral Rights depending on the method or content of use of NFT content. In addition, advertising and posting NFTs on NFT trading platforms appears to be an act of aiding and abetting the act of providing them to the public commercially and continuously because the NFTs contain a URI that links to NFT content that infringes copyright.
Eleonora Rosati is a Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Stockholm University (Sweden) and Of Counsel at Bird & Bird in Milan (Italy). The present contribution is a re-publication of a study prepared at the request of the World Intellectual Property Organization and published under the same title on 1 September 2023. Over time, technological advancements have resulted in novel ways both to exploit content and to infringe rightsâincluding intellectual property rights (IPRs)âvesting in them. Legislative instruments have consistently clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply to new media, ie, means to disseminate intangible assets, including in digital and online contexts. In terms of rights enforcement, however, the progressive dematerialization of content and dissemination modalities has given rise to challenges, including when it comes to determining where an alleged IPR infringement has been committed. This study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) Can the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other dissemination media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverse? (2) Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications for the localization of IPR infringements? The first question is answered in the affirmative. In relation to the second question, it is submitted that the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaversesâwhile of substantial relevance to the determination of enforcement optionsâmay not have significant implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned. Over time, technological advancements have resulted in novel ways both to exploit content and to infringe rightsâincluding intellectual property rights (IPRs)âvesting in them. Legislative instruments have consistently clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply to new media, ie, means to disseminate intangible assets, including in digital and online contexts. In terms of rights enforcement, however, the progressive dematerialization of content and dissemination modalities has given rise to challenges, including when it comes to determining where an alleged IPR infringement has been committed. The importance of such an exercise cannot be overstated: it is inter alia key to determining (i) whether the right at issue (eg, a registered IPR) is enforceable at the outset, (ii) which law applies to the dispute at hand as well asâin accordance with certain jurisdictional criteriaâ(iii) which courts are competent to adjudicate it. For example, determining that the relevant infringement has been committed in country A serves in turn to determine (i) if the right at issue is enforceable at all, given that IPRs are territorial in nature. So, if the IPR in question is a national trade mark, the infringement needs to be localized in the territory of the country where the right is registered; (ii) whether, eg, country Aâs law is applicable to the dispute at hand and (iii) if, eg, the courts in country A have jurisdiction to adjudicate the resulting dispute. This said, questions of applicable law and jurisdiction should not be conflated. Answering the former serves to ensure that a court does not have to apply more than one law, but rather on the of infringement to the law applicable to the such a to ensure that one law is applicable does not in the context of jurisdiction which for more than one The localization exercise has to be when the is committed in a digital online For infringements in courts the have developed to the the where (i) the the (ii) the content be and (iii) the is of criteria are of has in the of on a of including of relevant of an in a national is to is a substantial with a given is it is the the of to the and more of not is that such a be the rise of and for digital In the progressive of the be the of has for it has been to the of the new it is that the be and the of the and In metaverses have been developed which centralized and The distinction is on whether the at issue is and a eg, a whether it is a and decentralized eg, a decentralized as it to the of as the to has the to new to the and application of the criteria The present study is with the of such a study seeks to answer the following questions: the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other dissemination media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is The IPRs are trade and The is to infringements committed of and an and on are and as such an it is that a is through which the questions at the of the present study be answered in terms that are as and as to of relevance to the question of of IPRs online and in the is the of the be and in the alleged IPR infringement that not but the of other than the including are to The study is as and the to the present as well as relevant and of the relevant for the localization of IPR infringements in to and as well as national This a distinction between and registered on digital and online and and on localization for the of determining applicable law where A of the criteria on and of infringement be and the of resulting is with the of and whether the of the find application in relation to new at in as the questions are the one whether the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverses is answered in the affirmative. is submitted that the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaversesâwhile of substantial relevance to the determination of enforcement optionsâmay not have significant implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned. study as a as the courts in in relation to to for the localization of IPR including committed through the are the that substantial in terms of that to a with a given for the of both determining applicable law and the of and enforcement the question whether the has for a more of both at the a of the is a means of a on a to a is a is a between the and of the on the one hand and the rights and to online on the are to to the through to the territorial of the relevant that it more to online in that at the of of the in a for a on the of under law for the of The has which is the second of the that with the of and media and an more than be is to in the and not the more of have not and the application and enforcement of IPRs to inter alia the the of an IPR infringement is The importance of such a which be means of the infringement of both and registered IPRs in cannot be overstated: it is inter alia key to determining (i) whether the right at issue (eg, a registered IPR) is enforceable at the outset, (ii) which law applies to the dispute at hand as well asâin accordance with certain jurisdiction criteriaâ(iii) which courts are competent to adjudicate it. answer it be to a the answer to the following the the the the and the have in it has been are media in the of the are means to disseminate not in a new media have new ways to exploit content and with infringe relevant rights has not relevant and to be and the have to be not to new and have been the to both the and of In terms of and and courts have consistently IPRs applicable to the of through new as an example, the World Intellectual Property Organization and and at to and of on the other digital other the and clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply in the digital not In courts have consistently rights enforceable in digital and online contexts. So, in which the the the has both the relevant rights to the and and applicable in and The same is for that not the rights the for example, not law to to when it the through the of the the under the right has been to be in the context of digital through of the The apply to other IPRs So, the of of a trade for the of infringement has been to courts have not the of rights to in that the to and the as a new of dissemination of content and other in infringement of the IPRs A first in the novel the has been relevant to at of for a Over the of the has been has been technological including the of and the of for digital the to and of the of which is the for and to more than has been the The is to be and the of the and have to the as to the and with and the of advancements and to with the digital the of and with the of such a however, to be For the present it is to that the of does not to a metaverses have been developed which centralized and The distinction is on whether the at issue is and a eg, a whether it is a and decentralized eg, a centralized metaverses content is and to the in accordance with the terms of in decentralized metaverses is to the in relation to such content with the relevant content the that of a as a is and of to be between the of a and that of with the that the of of a to that of a the application of IPRs to media is determining the of an issue that has given rise to when the of such rights in is the one to the localization of alleged infringements as a of In the localization of the infringement to the in which the is to as a of the law applicable to the The localization of the infringement in is relevant to the of the of within the territorial of the and to the jurisdiction of the court the of within the territorial jurisdiction of the In however, questions of applicable law and jurisdiction should not be conflated. Answering the former serves to ensure that a court does not have to apply more than one law, but rather on the of infringement to the law applicable to the such a to ensure that one law is applicable does not in the context of jurisdiction which for more than one be in in online the between centralized and decentralized has given rise to and have been time, present an in terms of In and as an example, has as a to jurisdiction in with to both registered and The localization of the alleged infringement has the of the of the court in accordance with relevant criteria under and national For example, under law, the of the rise to the the where the one of the criteria to jurisdiction under The same is under of the with to between of the both and the courts of the in which the of infringement has been committed inter alia have jurisdiction in relation to the alleged infringement an trade right that the present study seeks to answer the following questions: the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is The IPRs are trade and The is to infringements committed of and an and on be and as such an it is that a is through which the questions at the of the present study be answered in terms that are as and as to of relevance to the question of of IPRs online and in the is the of the be and in the alleged IPR infringement that not but the of other than the including as are to The study is as of in it the relevant for the localization of IPR infringements in to and as well as national a distinction between and registered on digital and online and and on localization for the of determining the territorial of where A of the criteria on the and of infringement be and the of resulting This be relevant to the of the of in the online IPR enforcement with in relation to infringements committed in the including where the and localization of is with the of and whether the of the find application in relation to new at in In for and as a as the courts in in relation to to to the localization of IPR infringements committed through the are the that substantial in terms of that to a with a given for the of both determining applicable law and the of and enforcement the question whether the has for a more of both at the A of which is the of of rights under is territorial nature. In the in given territory on the law of that with to both and This said, the rather and and (eg, in the context of trade a of have the of the between national IPR has not through the of of but in the of IPR enforcement have been on a the a is to the other on enforcement of The in of the are a of following the of the has been a the it and as a IPR enforcement enforcement, have been at the In the the enforcement of in the that it does not that are more to the IPRs with which the present study is and relevant on the localization of a distinction to is that between trade and and registered trade and The present the for infringements of a on the same apply to other the relevant of and national with and enforcement at the the not instruments to a enforcement are the and the in and in the is on the of national and of for of of of the and of first is not that of the a of the of to the localization of The at to and of on the other digital the which with 1 to of the and the as key to and the on and rights the and the to to in and in the both instruments clarified that rights continue to apply in the digital and new online to a certain in to rights in the digital the of on IPRs has in relation to both law for and of and of law determining jurisdiction and applicable law in infringement The former have been through both and The have been through In terms of determination of the law applicable to the infringement of IPRs in in the is in a to determine the applicable law in infringements of the of the of the under The under is relevant to law, the localization of the to The relevant for IPRs and registered national IPRs are in and The in of the is that in a be in the courts of that The in as an that in a be in in to in the courts for the where the The of law in is not to the of the but rather to determine which court has jurisdiction in and in between and to the enforcement of Over time, has a and at it is that the where the be the where the the of the rise to that the be the of the the courts for of is in the law of the and where it is not to a of the should be on the at the rather than that at the of the have in in which the is an localization be that of the country where the relevant has said, the of where to has inter alia implications for the that be the has clarified that if one in an other than the one of of the ie, the where the content is the court is competent to adjudicate on the on that A in with the be in other including law In questions of applicable law are answered in the same as in the given the in in instruments the jurisdiction in be in accordance with a jurisdiction which determining if the is to the where the court is (eg, that the resulting not be under the law of the country where the court is be them. a does not to in the jurisdiction in inter alia needs to be in a which to the of a court to in a on the of the in such a of with inter alia said, the of to jurisdiction with court on of and eg, to the of and where the and the applicable to the to infringement under the in which the alleged infringement an is courts whether to the when determining jurisdiction when the of the are whether the not within the territory to determine law and This said, courts have that it is an under the to content a and the content to the eg, such content for the for registered the to in the of law is a in with the territorial of under law, the localization of the to The relevant for IPRs and registered national IPRs are in and registered the and of the to be in accordance with the law of the country where a national trade is that trade one to to in eg, through application for national in of the concerned. A of the territorial of infringement is not of relevance to it is to that the of for the registered IPRs in the present contribution is to the relevant and and within the and as trade are the under the not eg, the In for a trade to be in relation to and it to the to of the and to with and The of the at the of has the digital in In be the one it not be that for to the other courts in and the of the for to the digital including in the context of and of law developed in that have not a on the localization of IPR infringements and the of the in relation to inter alia national trade for that infringement the of for a of of an be the courts of the in which the of infringement has been committed In the courts of the in which the of infringement is committed have jurisdiction in of of infringement committed within the territory of that with the that the of the territorial jurisdiction of the court is to the that be than if in accordance with where the is The question that is whether, the of of the to infringement the of of infringement within has the same as where the within the In the answered in the that the for jurisdiction to are than within jurisdiction to the courts in the where the to the not in the where such that the in in the such to trade law, it is that the that and of the are not and to where the in is advancements and the of content and the and of have the dissemination and of both and in has a in the in which not content is and but are to the has of in digital have a rights have to a on and the and of content to the with to a has both the between and and and and have in and at both national and In has given rise to insofar as IPR enforcement is including questions of localization of the relevant time, courts have to and and in relation to new and infringement including in the context of eg, infringement In the to of has not resulted in significant of in infringement has more in have criteria to determine (i) the court is competent if it is in a country which the content is (ii) with the courts in the territory where the the and (iii) courts in the territory at which the content is have criteria are in should be that in has as a to determine applicable law and jurisdiction in and in of it be in In relation to both registered and in the of a in to alleged infringements in for of jurisdiction and applicable law has been the of the a certain In the for example, has been the to the infringement of the right and trade is a inter alia the in to the of application of that to of that are not in the A is well under the law of the with the of courts have a in relation to but not to in determining the of the infringement as such when the of the A more of the and is with the in and the the of in which the of infringement the intellectual property right at as to the law of the country where the of at the of the committed have been committed. In the context of online that of the of the of online the for of the said, on in the including to and other the has such a and for a This has been as in relation to (i) the in and in to determine whether the committed for and through a of in a an infringement under the (ii) and the right under of in and and (iii) the right of under of the in of of the in a be eg, the of a certain the content and of the and with in a certain other law and which be it is clarified in the that of the territory be on the at that of one more be on including of a a in that the of the of a relevant an be the of an in the relevant national the of in a in that the of such as in a in that The same that of a the on that be as a substantial to the has been as a to the relevant with the jurisdiction of the court in other For example, courts in the and a that be to the In the courts have consistently the question of whether a is to a country is a which on relevant where a to the the territory of the is territory and is at that be as within the in the of and the of that the of an online be for of to the a and to to the not to in the courts have in other of including trade For example, in the of of and to the in and and and the that to as to the court an for of a trade to of the trade in the territory the registered trade and within the right that if, to the it be that the is at in that the of the the a has been in in relation to the the of of and clarified that of the territory be the to a trade mark, and of the relevant and of the that the localization of the of the alleged IPR infringement be as a jurisdiction This is with to both registered and the has an to the of where the in relation to on a of in the for the of rise to the the has to that such a cannot be as jurisdiction to courts in a in which the alleged has not In the that the rise to the is where the of the for the of the content is In a the one at issue the to such an infringement be localized at the where the that is where the and carried out the to the online on a an been with to national trade in the that the where the rise to the be the where the alleged is This is such a be the where the relevant of infringement relevant be and be a is in with the of in the same in and such an is the of on a to to that present to an enforcement of and rights the jurisdiction the of of the to an to the jurisdiction in The of jurisdiction to the courts in the of the have been both and and the in with the such an In with to online infringement determination of the not be a This is it is more to a under as the has with to jurisdiction within the of infringement for in A has been to the and jurisdiction within insofar as are concerned. that the of is the same as that of for apply with to as the clarified that jurisdiction within is than under of the courts in the where the alleged infringement has been committed have to adjudicate the relevant dispute. of the not be to the of the trade an for on an online that in to be within the of trade law, in an of the application of said, the in and does not and the question of jurisdiction to the of the rise to the it is to the more in and a In the that an for infringement be the courts of the where the the are of whether the for the of the at issue of the to which the rise to the is where the alleged and the of and for not be it jurisdiction of the courts where the is and the jurisdiction of The for of be as in the at which such is of whether a has a is the that courts in that are to whether the alleged infringement does in the clarified the to to and determine the of the court For an of to be at a certain it is not that such are and for to be to other insofar as to with the in which the court of the infringement is is for the court to the of the that of infringement have been committed on the territory of a is it in and be given to the in to of the the of the of a a other than the in the in which the is of with an of on an in to to the that of in other of a other than that of the in which the is of an of in in in as the it is not to determine the of of the at a be the that the the of the of an to A distinction that is relevant to for the of the present is that between of and be not but are to infringe as the are an distinction is The first the of of and as a of In for of in relation to a in the but not the and the that of a of certain of a in an be to not in relation to should the be but at the The second distinction the of of on a does in the be in as are relevant to the of IPRs in the including in in which are to and be the localization of the In the in in with in the context of in and is to to the of For example, if one an of and that terms of a answer insofar as is out of developed through in with the of of for is when on enforcement including are not the A of the on the and localization to and to an and more of the in the enforcement to the of IPRs and the that such a has given rise be in with to IPR localization and enforcement to the In the second of the of of and the for a of the that carried out of The as including has been including in relation to For example, in the which in and insofar as certain are are not for infringements committed of In the the at a and online means of the and of online and the in the have been the of the a example, in law for in relation to including a be that the of has certain as a of the of and relevant For example, the in to with that with the example, in the the a of the it a of law in inter alia a in on the and as the are In the of an in for the in accordance with the as the in a where the content is if it is on the out eg, if the content is on a and is to the The in in which the that such a not been the in and that it is not in application to certain (eg, In however, it should be that other law has the in the but not For example, the application of the in a the of certain as a published on the The that of the the and for a that the of an to determine not have a within the of the In the the has the of the the that the at issue does not an which is such as to it of the In where the relevant is of the be on a In the of means that it be a for to said, in the for the first that the of an that the of content be on a for The clarified that the of of a under on the of which to that the of the is both and to the of whether the (i) technological that be a in the at issue to infringements on and (ii) in content to the (iii) for the of content such which be the that the has a that of to content to the that The that a has that content be is and is the that it on a in the to a if a has a and the has to to that In the the of under trade law with to an online that for
... The recent years have been marked by rising popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), first appeared in 2017,1 as a means to verify ownership and authenticity of digital assets. The opportunities inherent to the NFT rapidly growing industry can be observed through its projected revenue of US $3,162.00 million by 2027.2 NFTs can represent various forms of creative content, including visual arts, music, video games avatars, twits, gifs, newspaperâs columns, designs or postal stamps.3 Any physical work can also be minted into a NFT, as long as it can be digitized.4 By establishing scarcity and rivalry in digital assets, the blockchain technology and NFTs hold promising potential to introduce a digital copyright exhaustion mechanism, which would greatly benefit creators, consumers and the wider digital economy alike. To thoroughly examine the future prospects in this particular domain, this article commences by scrutinizing the copyright exhaustion doctrine in the light of the current regulatory framework and most notable jurisprudence, particularly the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) rulings exemplified in the seminal judgments of UsedSoft5 and Tom Kabinet.6 Subsequently, an evaluation is undertaken to compare the legal standing attained through these rulings with the outcome of the US ReDigi7 case.
Objective: In the ongoing digital era, digital rights are a major concern and demand measures to address challenges that encompass the management of effective law implementation. The following study aims at the contrivance and administration of international law to address digital rights. Method: Legal aspects of digital technology, also known as information technology law, is a practical field of law that has established a strong position among other legal fields in recent years, both in legal firms and educational institutions. Fresh technological advancements like massive data, the Web of Things, quantum computation, distributed ledger technology, and advanced formulas provoke inquiries concerning the governance of these technologies, such as the entitlements and safeguards that individuals possess or ought to possess. The growing utilization of electronic technologies by corporations and governments prompts various inquiries concerning the management of these technologies, specifically concerning the privileges and lawful safeguards individuals have a claim to. Result: The emphasis is primarily on the utilization and possible alteration of current (basic) entitlements. Nevertheless, the argument and lawful exploration in this domain needs a more extensive conversation regarding the novel entitlements that individuals ought to possess in the digital epoch. Occasionally, novel ideas emerge, like the concept of the 'right to erasure'. Conclusion: This piece of writing discusses the inquiry of what fresh, supplementary entitlements could be envisioned in the age of technology if we were to compose them anew, without being restricted to a predetermined collection of essential liberties. To initiate a more extensive lawful discussion on this matter, several novel entitlements for individuals in the electronic sphere are suggested.
Kwaku Adu-Amankwa is a PhD candidate at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom, based within the department of Design, Manufacturing and Engineering Management, and affiliated with the Centre for Internet Law & Policy. He researches complex security relationships associated with IP of additive manufacturing (3D printing) applications within digitally enabled/transformed supply chains. Angela Daly is a Professor of Law at the University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom, jointly appointed by the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science and Dundee Law School. She conducts research across IP, data protection, competition and sector-specific regulation and human rights law. Digital supply chains (DSCs) provide several advantages over traditional physical supply chains, yet they also pose new risks, including for IP, especially when associated with three-dimensional â3Dâ printing (3DP), also known as additive manufacturing (AM). Technological protection measure (TPM) usage in DSCs may help address the IP security issues of 3DP or AM but may result in overprotection and disregard for IP exceptions, which may also have a negative impact on innovation and other goals such as sustainability. This article considers how the IP security of 3DP/AM is addressed in DSCs, including by applying TPMs. We discuss whether the current approaches strike the right balance between the competing interests of different DSC actors. We also present some novel findings from a survey conducted with expert stakeholders to better understand IP security issues in practice. Our findings show that most respondents see IP and IP security efforts as both barriers and enablers to using 3DP/AM within DSCs. Also, the strategy chosen by most respondents for securing IP focuses on a technical approach, using inter alia TPMs. We infer that this dual perspective on IP and IP security may reflect the respondentsâ differing relationship with IP in DSCs, where one may wish to create, use and secure their own IP but also encounter barriers through the inaccessibility of the IP of third parties. In the Internet age, the relationship between IP and digital technologies has become the subject of intense debate, giving rise to legislative reforms, a vast body of case law and commercial and technical adaptations extensively documented in academic literature.1 While most of the attention has focused on copyright, the interaction of digital technologies with other IP rights, such as trade marks and patents (eg for keyword advertising and software and hardware patents), has also attracted scrutiny.2 Furthermore, questions over the ownership of data and trade secrets, data and algorithms also have IP-relevant aspects.3 As digital technologies, usually Internet enabled, have evolved, the debate has moved to new areas, including Internet-of-Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI) and smart manufacturing, especially three-dimensional â3Dâ printing (3DP) or additive manufacturing (AM). In many cases, these technologies give rise to interconnected issues, as they are deployed simultaneously, so that, eg a 3DP machine is part of the IoT.4 These new technologies are also vehicles for IP creation and dissemination and, in some cases, IP overreach and present issues for securing and utilizing IP, increasing the complexity of the debate. Digitalization facilitates decentralized manufacturing through a variety of technologies including 3DP, which relies on digital design files provided through digital communications means, such as the public Internet (especially for hobbyists using sites such as Thingiverse).5 Larger industrial production using digital manufacturing may mobilize securer, private networks to send and receive files and other necessary information or data to produce objects.6 In these ways, traditional supply chains, which previously typically involved centralized production in a large factory (often in China) and the distribution of products by sea, air and train, are transitioning to a different model, involving more decentralized and diffuse production, geographically closer to the end user.7 The more traditional supply chain model experienced various IP security issues, such as copycat production, including in factories that may have produced legitimate versions of products by day and counterfeit versions by night.8 However, digital supply chains (DSCs) may present more opportunities for IP infringement and, thus, reduce security for IP owners. DSCs integrating 3DP offer advantages over conventional supply chains and centralized manufacturing in terms of increased sustainability, convenience and less wastage.9 We have seen the tangible value of decentralized smart production and DSCs during the early part of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which significantly disrupted traditional supply chains, especially for high-demand medical and health products, including personal protective equipment such as facemasks and testing kits.10 However, DSCs and smart manufacturing raise new concerns about IP security, as IP travelling along DSCs may be vulnerable to being hacked or misappropriated through the supply chain.11 Also, digital files in the supply chain may also contain material that would infringe the IP of others. Commentators have been raising concerns about IP security in digital manufacturing, especially 3DP, as part of broader concerns about new manufacturing technologies, such as 3DPâs disruptive effect on the theoretical underpinnings and effective enforcement of IP.12 Again, the issue of IP security and countervailing interests, including access to knowledge and medical treatment, emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, where a particularly prominent case involved two engineers in Italy making replacement parts for a patented ventilator machine used to treat COVID patients threatened with litigation for allegedly infringing the patent.13 While in the end the case never reached a court, and the engineers may have been able to avail themselves of an exception to infringement, such threats may have a chilling effect on the use of distributed smart manufacturing.14 In this article, we focus on the issue of IP security in DSCs for smart manufacturing using 3DP or AM to consider (i) the extent to which IP is disrupted or weakened in DSCs and (ii) how IP is secured in these chains to mitigate such concerns. We summarize the relationship between 3DP and the law, focusing on IP, before considering how technical IP security measures have been mobilized in predecessor digital technologies. Here, we will focus on the debate around technological protection measures (TPMs) and digital rights management (DRM) as technical means of enforcing IP security. We consider how TPMs have been deployed in Internet-enabled content supply chains during the 1990s and 2000s, as well as the controversial legislative updates that accommodated DRM in that era, including the extent to which the right balance was struck between competing rights and We more in IP security in DSCs before research on this we offer AM as The of to parts from three-dimensional model usually as to manufacturing and manufacturing As by 3DP or AM physical and digital or products used to produce a from a digital model the industrial in the manufacturing has the manufacturing approaches distributed or different supply chain are involved in making a In digital manufacturing, supply chain are to and digital data may contain or as well as physical both These from more traditional manufacturing the industrial as the 3DP a three-dimensional from a digital design and which are in a to the using a large of material from which the is AM various advantages over traditional including and the to produce or that would be to traditional AM is known as 3DP as including in the body of on the so we this to the and manufacturing 3DP in various and at different with the printing in for that other such as and or of However, hardware and design such as along with 3DP the of 3DP to manufacturing In with a access to and an to produce that previously be on a usually This a of and However, as may be by the of 3DP has been as as may be other barriers to including the that some technical knowledge would the or of and for the and the of 3DP to and in many of law with 3DP and or and IP are these of law. The has been the to the creation of using 3DP with the a prominent and controversial involving the distribution of design files that be used with a 3DP machine to a right to these files in the of the right to and the right to has been the subject of debate and litigation in the and some in for most other in the which have more the IP has also in over 3DP, to has been litigation in this However, various have involving design files on such as and the of and to this content for IP of this is the of litigation the 3DP replacement parts during the COVID-19 pandemic, as IP issues in 3DP concerns with the of the the of files IP (especially the use of sites and the of new such as the Digital in the and the with their and and or However, 3DP from the digital content and Internet 3DP a more physical and This concerns about and 3DP, such as or products, and in and protection an IP this means that is the focus of IP law by digital concerns are by issues involving trade marks and other IP rights, a the (eg is to the Digital in the for have been on how 3DP and DSCs pose to IP and how to address these from the that IP rights are to a extent at the through the and the on of thus, is a in how IP law in different and how IP rights to manufacturing digital manufacturing This for supply chains, whether digital or they are or and Furthermore, IP rights are in third use IP the rights or These exceptions, which for IP right and between to that the right balance is struck between different (especially IP and at and that is access to for The balance to be struck between IP rights and is subject to debate, as access to such as human or and, more access to COVID-19 and these of in digital that more approaches this design be or is a for IP law and and one that may from the of TPMs. The of IP infringement is a prominent security within DSCs. have that integrating technologies of the industrial including DSCs and 3DP, for manufacturing and pose various to security securing IP and data in DSCs a and IP security is an in law and for supply chains, their but DSCs have new security issues increased and impact from data and DSCs, the of on information has become to attention to the value in the information of which may IP and for making or is DSCs, through decentralized digital and physical for the or manufacturing information to the end This be with a traditional supply where information is usually as through centralized or a the and the information such that the end the in is to as as traditional supply chains encounter IP risks, these may be increased in DSCs, making the IP security issue the more and on the secured the within is and research IP in DSCs, including research on the increased of IP infringement to traditional supply chains. As well as more theoretical on IP and 3DP including that 3DP use within DSCs would result in over to IP at a by on of the issues of IP to be over has for being to measure or to the of IP within the digital and the issue of IP infringement more at this that has to has been for the extent and of IP infringement in 3DP more The that the theoretical 3DP to conventional IP and the infringement is so in and have been to secure IP in DSCs, including the use of TPMs within the communications and TPMs as technological to the use of digital by access to such or various of such including and TPMs used for 3DP applications within supply chains using distributed (eg and DRM or to production and distributed or However, using technical to IP in DSCs may of such IP with to and have that such overreach by TPMs in digital technologies, especially the is a of this overreach and of material is to the using technical means, eg an This is usually the of the IP or the that the However, of a also the material to be used for that would infringe the TPMs is a which be used for legitimate and The of TPMs was and in the and the and contain a and that to protection and effective the of effective technological used by and in to the the IP this is to that these and addressed TPMs and copyright, 3DP also other IP The in the and have to a in many have and the overprotection of by legitimate of by an exception or to The have been in many such as through and of the in of the and and of the Digital to the eg for the to to eg of the and However, the for using these are and (eg the for a to to the of to a of a The which the in the of to in a for the public in the interests of the issue of securing IP in DSCs a have been about how TPMs may the of products, as is as a exception in many and have IP law other to products with and and the to parts are which DSCs to these may innovation and this is subject to In to the of or end in the DSC infringing IP, the IP within the DSC result in the digital of the manufacturing the physical or for As well as IP infringement, such may be and subject to law and DSC on the and have to with such as the for and in the the and personal data protection such as the for the being in the This of issues and concerns about and the use of data in manufacturing As 3DP is on digital or technologies, about whether technological of IP within DSCs of IP protection are also is a of on and in these areas, which more complexity to securing DSCs, especially manufacturing within such supply chains, from a Technological in IP management may have the effective use of TPMs conventional IP TPMs may be as early as the IP and may to the IP in we in as a for the increasing to secure IP with TPMs. management and technological protection measure is also that the also security issues and concerns across the including IP, which are this is the of research and, thus, an for In securing IP in supply chains used to manufacturing various issues in IP security, from in in different some of to the for overreach in applying to the use of for for other of IP design rights and trade The research on 3DP and IP to has involved information about how IP security is for using 3DP and DSCs about they to secure IP We to in and present from research to address this is or of a DSC in the and is a We a DSC as on the various by and technological that is based on the of data and and for digital and networks to and interaction between by making more and with and effective The focus of is based on the or supply chain model, which is by by the digital and in the physical as by We understand that both the and involved in the supply chain the digital to and that are associated with of that in the physical and be or from the digital or physical The supply chain we focus on is we to as a a used in and that digital is about making or in the digital concerns the and novel digital technologies to the of and within the supply This to printing as a within the smart manufacturing for a of and across the of supply chains are an The COVID-19 has this some within DSCs have provided of the between DSCs and traditional supply where these DSCs also or some of the of both traditional supply chains and DSCs are a that and so one consider to their or of with digital and associated digital technologies. of the supply chain are (i) over manufacturing data previously and (ii) to digital being on These may by IP rights and (eg trade also in of the increased of in the manufacturing and have for DSC to secure the supply chain and the of However, has been research on how these are addressed in in 3DP DSCs, especially from the perspective of IP security. understand this issue we present some from research that we have conducted on and We an using the which was distributed to with IP security issues in 3DP/AM DSCs, to their about securing the IP of AM applications within supply chains from to was chosen is to access to the data and result or to other in a to the This was for the and relationships between the of subject We used the in the survey as is more used in expert The survey a of questions to measure and their and with IP issues when AM is used as the manufacturing within a The two questions as securing and IP when using AM in the supply with IP for using AM within the supply We also which provide some on the and the of consider IP an or a to using AM within supply consider securing the IP of AM a or an to using AM within supply the about the they would to secure their IP within a DSC when using of for securing and IP for when using AM in a supply The with the of to the and of respondents at the and This to on the of about IP and for IP security the findings with on IP, AM and TPMs to this research are across including law and chosen to address the We with in some of 3DP, DSCs and IP to in the This involved a of to some about we as to in the We from using the on and networks (eg and and to be in the of of was a in (eg or information in may have in or to whether knowledge and Furthermore, conducted using are usually as a yet they have a and the for of the survey was to be a to the we have with a that to and they to to to their to from and to from various which we have the and As in most of respondentsâ in or by a in academic the in of eg engineers and or This a distribution of across the of IP, supply security and management from technical and The about their of in securing IP and IP security for AM applications within supply chains in two that the securing IP and an IP security strategy for AM use within the supply some that they or may have such when using AM within supply chains. We use the Manufacturing as an in and to to supply chains that use AM as their of or with on additive manufacturing supply chains. was that, and to whether they with securing IP, the with more and to whether they in an IP strategy for AM use within supply chains. In two about their of the effect of IP and security on using AM within supply chains. whether IP was a or an to using AM within supply chains, and whether securing IP was a or an to using AM within supply chains. that of the that IP, as well as securing IP, is both a and an to using AM within the supply of on additive manufacturing supply chains. is that for both questions on IP and securing IP, the significantly about whether was a of or an of when the of or are they for about a third of this is closer to the of see the effect as both a and an and about a of that these are a an and We about their IP security and management for AM use in the supply the for this that using technical approaches (eg to and secure IP when using AM in a supply This was by approaches with approaches (eg protection in IP law such as a of that an access was and the was IP security security strategy was at by different the various they more one different The technical was in of by the and the in of the for of the disregard emerged in two of as the IP The most IP strategy and technical by of This was by (i) technical and by of (ii) technical and as well as by of respondents technical and by of and and technical by of respondents the IP by of we a of and as well as and a of technical and as well as and a of and the as the means to address IP security was conducted on the to relationships within the This to that the of IP on AM use within supply chains to the of IP security that are the and security strategy and on additive manufacturing supply chains. We that the IP security and management approaches for questions about the effect of IP on using AM within the supply in which that they as both a and an As the a technical a a an and a disregard in that their for securing effect on using AM within the supply chain in of a technical a a an and a disregard in that they consider effect on using AM within the supply chains as a an also a technical a a and an in as for securing that they consider securing effect on using AM within the supply chains as a an technical and approaches over a and an when that effect on using AM within the supply chains was a the strategy that was associated with that was a by and technical approaches and, an when securing effect on using AM within the supply chains was as a the strategy that emerged was in of a by for a by and technical approaches when effect on using AM within the supply chains was as an their for a technical over a by a an as for securing IP on using AM within the supply chains in However, when securing effect on using AM within the supply chains was as an a for a technical a a and an in The that TPMs their are the strategy to secure and in the of AM applications within supply chains. is strategy especially when securing IP a to using AM within the supply chains. was conducted on to relationships within the This to that the IP when using AM within supply chains to the of IP security that the and security strategy and with many that they have in securing IP or IP security their that they strategy to secure their IP when using AM within supply chains. these respondents that their in of a technical and a over a an and a disregard when with the of securing IP when using AM within supply chains. the that these respondents their for a technical by a a an and a disregard when with the of IP security when using AM within supply chains. to being to IP the technical and over the disregard and approaches to being with IP security when using AM within supply chains, the IP security technical approaches and to being with securing IP when using AM within supply chains a for a technical and a over a to being with IP security when using AM within supply chains their in of a technical and a before considering a over a disregard be that the IP security in with IP when using AM within supply the technical was the most by the approach, over the Our show the of IP and IP security for digital manufacturing in DSCs, 3DP or AM applications within such chains. We that most IP to a dual both a and an to using 3DP/AM in most that securing IP was both a and an to using 3DP/AM in DSCs. These may of the with and using their own IP for 3DP/AM applications within DSCs and, on the other their to use IP However, the that this was the perspective that of IP being to within DSCs, or 3DP/AM traditional IP, are prominent in this complexity in the of IP and IP security is a for more research with expert the several to secure IP in DSCs including (eg or design rights that emerged as the third most technical approaches to IP, using are the most strategy for 3DP/AM use within DSCs, most would use these in with other including commercial and protection of from the and based on and that be associated with their of to IP issues within DSCs that use security strategy and with IP was that with securing IP or with IP security or a technical was the most by both and but academic a and approaches when with securing IP, yet a an IP security This a for TPMs across most is that more one strategy we infer from the that they a of and they to strike some balance to IP when using 3DP/AM within DSCs. security strategy and on AM supply was that a effect of IP or a effect of securing IP or technical and approaches the most by a of technical and academic a of technical and technical and approaches when the effect of IP, yet a effect when securing Furthermore, a dual effect of IP or a dual effect of securing IP a and an a technical this and technical academic a for approaches and and The complexity on the by when IP was from the approaches they but was most was the of academic that may the on IP being in especially when using 3DP/AM within DSCs. This may also reflect within as a less innovation and more use and dissemination of IP to other of research is that are usually in their we with we more about their on these different in differing ways, in different or at different in the DSCs, which are for Furthermore, focus on 3DP/AM within DSCs may to findings for digital manufacturing supply chains and IP some the that and may be with research to the of in and digital manufacturing supply chains. The for using TPMs to secure IP for 3DP/AM applications within DSCs may be an means of and securing their own issues about the overreach of IP protection and the effect on the legitimate of by 3DP/AM in This may some and of using decentralized including printing and may innovation to 3DP/AM use within DSCs. that legitimate IP protection is an overreach rights may be a for research in 3DP/AM and DSCs, especially in the current of to conventional supply chains and the to production and increasing in of
Open access
Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies