Blockchain Papers

K. Balaji, P. Seshagiri Rao

No abstract is available for this record.

Tolulope Falokun

No abstract is available for this record.

C Komalavalli, Rinki Bhati, Akhilesh Kumar Khan, Arun Kumar Tripathi · 7 authors

The swift AI-generated art development has further fueled the discussion on both authorship and ownership, as well as on whether digital rights can be enforced. The existing intellectual property paradigms lack the ability to recognise works produced by autonomous systems fully or in part, which presents proxies in the maintenance of copyright, derivatives and cross-jurisdictional identification of AI-related rights. With more and more creative outputs based on algorithmic processes, there is an urgent requirement to have transparent, tamper-resistant processes that would be able to define, assign and protect right at scale. One of the promising infrastructures to facilitate legal and economic aspects of AI-generated art is the use of smart contracts, which are the self-executable agreements that run on blockchain networks. This paper discusses how authorship claims can be encoded in smart contracts, how royalty payments can be automated, and how programmable access controls can be offered, at the same time, offering verifiable provenance by tokenizing the provenance. We analyze technical specifications of creating powerful metadata standards to cover creation parameters, level of contributions, and model lineage. Moreover, we discuss interoperability issues in the heterogeneous blockchains and digital marketplaces, which are limited to the immutability, upgradability, and long-term security. In addition to the technical design, the paper evaluates the ethical impact, such as the fairness to human designers, responsible design of AI innovators, and risks to society in general of bias, exploitation, and its unequal distribution of rights-management systems.

Tingyu Huang

Artificial intelligence increasingly governs access to credit, employment, and identity verification, raising questions of rights protection when deployed across borders. This paper develops a computable framework for Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) that transforms the legal principles of necessity and proportionality into quantifiable metrics. By embedding these standards into algorithmic pipelines, the framework enables verifiable auditing of high-risk AI systems. Simulations were conducted in two domains, credit scoring and biometric authentication, using synthetic datasets modeled on European and non-European jurisdictions. The necessity audits reduced the average input set by 24.6 ± 2.3 variables while sustaining predictive accuracy, while proportionality assessments exposed heavy reliance on sensitive features in 39%* of credit scoring models and significant subgroup disparities in biometric authentication. Distributed verification protocols preserved results on blockchain ledgers, ensuring transparency and cross-border accountability. The findings demonstrate that computable FRIAs can operationalize fundamental rights obligations, producing results that can be inspected by regulators and reviewed in courts. The study concludes that computable methods offer a practical bridge between jurisprudential principles and algorithmic implementation, though persistent divergences in cross-border proportionality standards remain a major challenge for harmonized enforcement.

Sagar Behere

Third-party risk management (TPRM) reaches an inflection point, with artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities meeting pressing demands for real-time vendor risk oversight of increasingly complex digital ecosystems. Conventional assessment methodologies resting on manual questionnaires, annual review cycles, and document-centric evaluations are poorly matched to the pace and interconnectedness driving modern technology. This article analyzes how intelligent automation is remaking basic processes in vendor governance, from optimization of questionnaires through semantic modeling to predictive monitoring allowed through continuous data synthesis. Unstructured vendor control documentation is now parsed by natural language models to extract control metadata and produce risk assessments that must be validated, rather than created, by humans. Algorithmic integrity is tackled with multi-model verification architectures that employ parallel processing pipelines where ensemble methods quantify confidence levels and flag gaps in the vendor control environment for risk subject matter expert review. Brain-inspired computing principles underpin system design, with hierarchical feature extraction possible, along with adaptive learning from assessment outcomes. Technical debt becomes a critical governance factor, particularly in the context of data dependencies and configuration management across model lifecycles. Explainable artificial intelligence provides transparency that is vital to regulatory recognition, allowing risk officers to trace decision pathways and understand feature attributions underlying automated recommendations. Convergence of distributed ledger technology with intelligent risk systems unlocks opportunities for tamper-proof audit trails and privacy-preserving attestations in support of cross-organizational governance frameworks framed by emerging digital resilience mandates.

Bernard Nainggolan, Agus Pramono, Stefan Koos

The advancement of digital technology has transformed access to information and creativity, enabling widespread distribution of digital works. However, this ease of access has led to significant challenges in enforcing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), particularly in Indonesia, where legal frameworks like Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright and Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions are tested by rampant digital infringements. This study examines the adequacy of existing Indonesian legal frameworks in protecting IPR in the digital era, focusing on gaps in enforcement and regulatory adaptation to emerging technologies such as streaming platforms and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). Using a normative juridical method, this research analyzes relevant statutes, case law, and legal doctrines to assess their effectiveness in addressing digital IPR violations. The findings reveal that while Indonesia has a robust legal foundation, enforcement remains weak due to limited public awareness and inadequate mechanisms for addressing digital-specific infringements. This study emphasizes the need for regulatory reform, enhanced enforcement mechanisms, and targeted education to strengthen IPR protection, fostering innovation and economic competitiveness in Indonesia’s digital landscape.

Bakhshillo Khodjaev, Q.L. Mirzabek

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

Thanmai Mandala, Cora Zeger, Tessa E Andersen, Gaby G. Dagher · 5 authors

Blockchain technology is a promising innovation to store information online while being secure and transparent at the same time. Despite the benefits, the immutable nature of blockchain makes it prone to vulnerabilities as any smart contract uploaded onto the blockchain cannot be modified later. Thus, it is imperative to design secure smart contracts during development stages and incorporate effective vulnerability detection mechanisms. Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are a propitious approach to automate vulnerability detection. However, recent attempts at using LLMs to detect vulnerabilities have resulted in high false positive rates and seem prone to obsolescence due to evolving Solidity code. Moreover, existing research often conflate weaknesses with vulnerabilities, despite their apparent differences, and all prior works only focus on vulnerability detection based on broad categories rather than their exact vulnerability identifiers (VIDs). To address these gaps, we propose a novel framework, VulnDetective, of fine-tuned LLM agents and a CWE-VID database to map weaknesses to their corresponding vulnerability, thereby increasing detection accuracy. Our findings show that pre-trained base models struggle significantly with detecting exact vulnerabilities, while VulnDetective shows significant improvement over base models.

InvestTWLGF Oy

<p>This Zenodo record contains the verified smart contract source code for the TWLGF token project.</p> <p>The code has been published and verified on BscScan as an Exact Match. <br>This record provides an EU OpenAIRE DOI and long-term archive reference for the official contract source.</p> <p>Network: BNB Smart Chain (BSC)<br>Compiler: solc v0.5.16+commit.9c3226ce<br>Optimization: 200 runs<br>License: MIT</p> <p>Verified contract address:<br>https://bscscan.com/address/0xA45D0f9337eF5539d77c41e968137C391d1d7704#code</p> <p>This record complements other publicly archived TWLGF documentation:<br>• Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/twlgf-bsc-scan-verified-source-2025-11-12<br>• GitHub repository: https://github.com/twlgfofficial/twlgf_logo<br>• Google Drive timestamped PDF (2025-11-12)<br>• Whitepaper DOI: https://zenodo.org/records/17516133</p>

Idowu Olugbenga Adewumi

No abstract is available for this record.

Ping Han

The rapid digitization of commercial, governmental, and legal transactions has created an urgent need for efficient, secure, and transparent dispute resolution mechanisms. Traditional arbitration systems often fall short when handling the complexity and volume of digital evidence, smart contracts, and cross-border interactions. This study proposes a novel AI-powered digital arbitration framework that integrates smart contracts, blockchain-based evidence authentication, and explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to automate and modernize the arbitration process. The framework comprises three core layers: (i) a smart contract-based agreement layer that encodes legal terms and self-executing arbitration clauses; (ii) a blockchain-based evidence management layer that ensures the integrity, authenticity, and traceability of submitted evidence; and (iii) an AI-based arbitration engine that classifies, interprets, and evaluates evidence using transformer and LSTM models, supported by SHAP and LIME for interpretability. A controlled experimental setup was implemented using Ethereum and Hyperledger Fabric testnets, with AI models trained on 1,200 annotated arbitration cases. Results demonstrate a 99.5% reduction in arbitration time, a 92.4% agreement rate between AI and expert rulings, and a 99% accuracy in tampering detection. Furthermore, 87.3% of AI-generated decisions were rated as interpretable and acceptable by legal experts. These findings confirm the system's ability to deliver fast, accurate, and explainable arbitration decisions while complying with legal standards. This research contributes a foundational blueprint for deploying autonomous arbitration systems in digital governance, offering scalable solutions for future applications in smart contracts, e-commerce disputes, and algorithmic legal infrastructure.

А. Г. Волеводз, M. M. Dolgieva

In this article, we carry out a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the criminal policy in the field of cryptocurrency confiscation in Russia, the European Union, and the United States. The relevance of this research is determined by the rapid growth of crimes involving crypto assets (money laundering, cybercrimes, and drug trafficking) and the lack of effective mechanisms for their final confiscation and implementation in Russia, which undermines the efforts of law enforcement agencies. We aim to identify effective models of cryptocurrency confiscation based on a comparative analysis of legislation and practice in leading jurisdictions and, on this basis, to develop recommendations for improving the Russian legal framework. The methodology includes a comparative legal analysis of regulatory acts (Russian Criminal Procedure Code, EU Directive 2014/42/EU, US Code), a formal legal method, an analysis of judicial practice (Russia, USA), and doctrinal sources. The key findings can be summarized as follows: (1) the USA enjoys the most advanced system, where the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) actively uses private exchanges to convert confiscated assets; (2) the EU has established a strong legal framework (5/6AMLD, Directive 2014/42/EU); however, implementation practices here vary among member states, combining government-owned storage and outsourced sales through licensed platforms; (3) in the Russian Federation, despite the practice of seizure and arrest of crypto assets and legislative initiatives, the legal mechanism for their confiscation and sale is lacking, making court decisions unenforceable. In order to overcome this gap in Russia, it is necessary to urgently legislate cryptocurrency as property for the purposes of confiscation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, grant the Federal Service for Judicial Enforcement of the Russian Federation the authority to sell through licensed platforms, as well as to develop expert potential. Our study extends the current knowledge by detailing the technological aspects of confiscation in the EU and the USA and proposes specific ways to modernize the criminal policy of the Russian Federation.

Adrian Alexandrescu, Delia-Elena Bărbuță, Cristian-Nicolae Buțincu, Gabriel-Alexandru Scînteie · 11 authors

In the rapidly evolving digital landscape, ensuring trust, transparency, and security in online collaborations remains a significant challenge, particularly for innovators and experts engaged in knowledge exchange. The proposed SPARK-IT platform leverages blockchain, AI-driven matchmaking, decentralized identity management, and tokenomics to foster a secure innovation ecosystem. By utilizing a permissioned blockchain, smart contracts, and decentralized storage, SPARK-IT ensures intellectual property protection, traceability of contributions, and non-repudiation in mentor-innovator engagements.This paper presents the technical architecture of the platform, demonstrating how distributed ledger technology and AI-driven methodologies can establish a human-centered, sustainable and trustworthy online innovation ecosystem. By bridging academia, startups, and industry, SPARK-IT redefines digital trust and collaboration in the innovation economy.

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

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

Hüseyin Can Aksoy

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are unique digital tokens built on blockchain technology that represent and provide public evidence of the ownership of underlying assets. They have reshaped the digital landscape by offering a novel paradigm for ownership authenticity and value exchange across various sectors, including art, entertainment, and real estate. NFTs have given rise to complex legal issues, particularly in data protection law. This chapter investigates the intersection of NFTs and data protection, emphasizing the legal challenges arising from the processing of personal data within NFT ecosystems. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR or Regulation), known for its stringent requirements and broad territorial scope, serves as the primary framework for the analysis. This study examines how NFTs, which often store or reference various forms of data including metadata, assets, ownership records, and transaction histories, fall under the GDPR’s strict data protection regime. It explores the challenges posed by blockchain’s inherent characteristics, such as immutability and decentralization, in aligning with GDPR principles.

Jure Bočina

U ovom završnom radu se govori o temama koje su usko vezane za kriptovalute i njihovim načinima plaćanja. Od samog početka čovječanstva ljudi su međusobno razmjenjivali robu. Kako je čovječanstvo napredovalo, tako je napredovala i robna razmjena. Kako je napredovala razmjena, tako se razvijao novac i mijenjao svoj oblik. U današnje vrijeme se koristi papirnati novac, no sve veći udio na tržištu ima elektronički novac i plaćanje karticama koje polako postaju standard. Još trenutno slabije prihvaćen način plaćanja je plaćanje kriptovalutama, koje imaju svoje pozitivne i negativne strane, uspone i padove, te se bore za svoje mjesto na tržištu. No zasigurno imaju potencijala, što se jednim djelom vidi i kod udruživanja sa velikim igračima kao što je Visa, i sa sve većom prepoznatljivošću na tržištu.

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

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

Zainab Johar

This Research paper attempts to examine and analyse the legal nature and law which govern virtual property, covering the concept of ownership, transfer, and regulatory challenges within the metaverse. This Research paper aims to set-out the struggles of traditional legal framework to adapt to the new digital environment consisting of technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR), 3D modelling, and edge computing converge to form the metaverse. The study explains blockchain technology, as it reinforces non-fungible tokens (NFTs) which is the key standard for virtual ownership. It also attempts to analyse how existing legal framework in India for property laws, such as the Transfer of Property Act 1882[1] and the Sale of Goods Act 1930[2], could bring virtual assets under its legal parameters. A comparative analysis of the UK, US, EU, and Indian legal frameworks shows how different legal approaches helps in classification of digital assets. The UK Law Commission’s recommendation demonstrates a progressive shift toward recognising virtual property rights by introducing a new category of “digital objects”.[3] The Research paper highlights the inadequacy of existing property laws for resolving the exclusive cross-jurisdictional and ownership challenges posed by digital environments, concluding that just providing conceptual foundation is not enough. It advocates for a harmonised global governance framework integrating statutory law, soft law principles like the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts[4], and platform-specific regulation to ensure certainty, accountability, and protection of digital ownership.

Siti Khadijah Abdullah Sanek, Irma Kamarudin, Arina Kamarudin

This article examines the evolving relationship between digital assets, intellectual property (IP), and emerging technologies, with a particular focus on legal implications under European Union (EU) law. Innovations such as digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and artificial intelligence (AI) generated works, are reshaping concepts of ownership and intellectual property (IP). The article adopts a threefold methodological approach. To assess the adequacy of current legal frameworks, a systematic review highlights key limitations in applying traditional property law to intangible assets like cryptocurrencies and NFTs. The second element analyses the effects of emerging technologies on IP rights and regulatory compliance through an interdisciplinary synthesis of recent research. Lastly, a comparative legal analysis draws on EU and international case studies to identify regulatory gaps and propose policy responses. The findings suggest that while digital assets promote innovation, their decentralised and intangible nature poses challenges to core legal concepts such as exclusivity, attribution, and enforceability. Despite progress in EU digital regulation, inconsistencies persist across jurisdictions. The article concludes that a more harmonised legal framework supported by clearer definitions, the integration of smart contracts, and effective cross-border dispute mechanisms is necessary to ensure that IP law remains effective in the digital economy.

Zefan Jiang

This paper explores the evolving legal nature of digital collectibles, particularly non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and the systemic challenges they pose to civil law property regimes. Within civil law traditions, the concept of property is bound by codified categories and the principle of numerus clausus, which restricts recognition to a limited set of property forms. Digital collectibles, by contrast, are decentralized, programmable, and technologically mediated, defying conventional classifications such as tangible movables or intangible rights. This disconnect generates uncertainty regarding their ownership, transferability, inheritance, and enforceability under traditional legal frameworks. The analysis addresses how digital assets undermine the foundational assumptions of possession, registration, and state-backed enforcement. Particular attention is given to the problems of inheritance continuity, token fragmentation, cross-border legal conflicts, and the role of private key control in lieu of legal title. Drawing from emerging theoretical debates and comparative jurisprudence, the paper proposes a trajectory of adaptive legal reform that includes doctrinal reinterpretation, statutory innovation, and the development of interoperable legal-technical standards. The study concludes that civil law systems must reconceptualize the legal object and embrace a pluralistic approach to digital property to ensure institutional relevance in the era of algorithmic ownership.

Hassan Abbas, Azhar Mahmoud Lahmod

This study aims to demonstrate the role of explicit and implicit will in determining the law applicable to smart contracts. Traditional attribution criteria have become incapable of determining the law of digital contracts. This requires a more effective legal system that is compatible with the nature of this type of digital dispute, ensuring legal security and protecting the legal positions of the parties to the contract. This study was conducted using an analytical approach, analyzing relevant legal texts in national and international laws, in addition to a comparative legal approach to study comparative laws in the Anglo-American and Latin American systems, to demonstrate the role of these systems in establishing rules for smart contract operations through digital platforms. The study revealed that the explicit will is the best traditional solution available in legal systems for determining the law applicable to smart contracts. While implicit intention has diminished the importance of the unified elements of a smart contract across all contracts, rendering it incapable of establishing a method for determining contract law. The virtual and decentralized nature of these contracts has led many legislators to refrain from addressing them, given the difficulty of creating a legal system in light of the infrastructure that requires development to accommodate contractual processes in this type of contract. Legal development in the field of smart contracts and artificial intelligence is necessary through the study of technical aspects by specialists to develop a substantive law that addresses the legal issues that arise when implementing smart contracts similar to electronic contracts. This law also addresses the issue of determining the law applicable to the international nature of this type of contract, or through developing attribution criteria that align with the nature of virtual disputes.

Pierangelo Blandino

Abstract This paper examines current shortcomings of existing legal principles in addressing the immaterial and a-territorial nature of blockchain technology, which challenges foundational legal concepts such as sovereignty and territoriality. It explores how blockchain’s operational framework disrupts traditional legal discourse, particularly in the realm of Private International Law. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the inadequacies of the lex situs principle when applied to crypto assets and blockchain networks. Established legal categories struggle to accommodate inherently digital assets like Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), which defy territory-based classifications within Private International Law. To address these challenges, the paper proposes integrating Ricœur’s theories on narration as a means of reconciling legal discourse with blockchain technologies. By viewing legal principles through the lens of narrative structures, this approach suggests two complementary solutions: incorporating token ecologies into the existing legal framework or reimagining a token-centric legal order. Methodologically, the argument draws on Ricœur’s concept of triple mimesis, demonstrating how established legal principles can be adapted to the digital landscape through a narrative-driven perspective.

Tianxiang He

The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has sparked worldwide debates on how copyright law should respond to the challenges it has raised. In Hong Kong (HK), this conversation has taken centre stage in the recently published Consultation Paper on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence.1 With the aim of providing the HK legislator with a complete picture of the global debate, the School of Law at City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK) held an international conference entitled ‘Comparative Perspectives on AI and Copyright Law: Evaluating HK’s Policy Responses in the AI Era’ on 12–13 December 2024. The conference gathered international legal scholars, practitioners and policymakers to examine how copyright law and policy can properly respond to the AI challenges. This special issue, ‘AI and Copyright upgrate’, arises from that conference and presents six selected papers that together illuminate how copyright regimes can be updated for the AI era. Each contribution addresses a distinct facet of the GAI-copyright interface: the overall impact, copyrightability, infringement, intermediary liability, automated copyright enforcement and remuneration and inequality. Together, they offer insights into doctrinal rethinking, policy innovation and the fundamental values at stake. The issue opens with Daryl Lim’s article, which sets an ambitious tone by examining the extractive dynamics of GAI and their impact on core copyright assumptions. Lim deploys a vivid metaphor—Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian (the infamous banana duct-taped to a wall)—to illustrate how GAI’s rise exposes structural inequalities in the creative economy. Lim highlights the extractive practices by which AI developers leverage vast amounts of human-created work without due credit or compensation, thereby amplifying existing power disparities between tech companies and individual creators. Lim argues that these inequities call for a recalibration of copyright law: rather than viewing AI as a neutral tool, the law must recognize and address the imbalance it creates. His contribution sets an equity-focused agenda for copyright reform, suggesting that any legislative responses must account for fairness to human artists and authors in an AI-driven marketplace. By rethinking foundational assumptions, Lim’s piece compellingly frames the normative stakes of AI’s impact on copyright and sets the stage for the more targeted analyses that follow. Following this broad structural critique, Chen Yang’s article turns to the issue of copyrightability of AI-generated content (AIGC). The focus is on HK’s ‘computer-generated work’ (CGW) doctrine under the HK Copyright Ordinance (HKCO), casting a critical eye on its ability to properly cover AIGC. Chen analyses HKCO, which the government asserts already, provides a backbone of copyright protection for AIGCs. Chen challenges this optimistic view by unpacking the doctrine’s limitations and the questionable assumptions behind it. In particular, he questions whether traditional requirements like originality or the so-called ‘necessary arranger’ rule can seamlessly extend to AIGCs by comparing the UK experiences. His paper argues that, without careful reconsideration, simply relying on the existing CGW framework is insufficient. While an overhaul may not be imminent, Chen’s piece underscores the need for a more nuanced approach if HK’s copyright regime is to truly harness AI’s creative opportunities. In his paper, Jiawei Zhang focuses on the much-debated issue of the potential copyright infringement risk of training AI using copyrighted works. He advocates a fundamental shift in regulatory perspective from inputs to outputs in the context of AI and copyright. Zhang argues that current debates fixate too much on the input side—the masses of copyrighted works ingested to train AI models—instead of focusing on the output—the contents that AI systems generate. He argues that an output-oriented approach would better calibrate copyright law to the realities of GAI. By judging AIGC on its own merits (for instance, whether an output unlawfully reproduces copyrighted works), policymakers can move away from abstract concerns over training data and towards concrete criteria for copyright infringement determination. This shift, he suggests, would lead to more balanced outcomes: it preserves incentives for human creativity while still allowing AI technology to flourish under clearer rules. The next article by Taorui Guan and Yang Lin tackles the issue related to the safe-harbour regimes for internet intermediaries. Their paper examines whether the safe-harbour regimes can be upgraded to accommodate the challenges raised by GAI through role-specific obligations. They note that the traditional Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)-style safe harbour—where internet services avoid liability by promptly removing infringing user uploads—does not translate neatly to AI systems, which do not store content in discrete files that can simply be taken down. To resolve this, they envision a reconfigured framework assigning tailored responsibilities to different players in the AI ecosystem. For example, AI model developers, platform providers and end-users would each have defined duties (such as monitoring, transparency or responsiveness to complaints) commensurate with their role in generating or disseminating AI content. This differentiated safe-harbour regime aims to maintain the DMCA’s innovation-friendly spirit while strengthening accountability: it would continue to shield good-faith innovators from crippling liability, but only on the condition that they proactively mitigate copyright risks appropriate to their function. Their contribution thus sketches a blueprint for legal reform that balances the protection of rights with the realities of AI-driven services. Connected to the previous article about intermediaries, Jesse Lu’s article focuses on the issue of platform governance and enforcement, criticizing the emerging trend of automated copyright moderation. He observes that, as platforms increasingly deploy algorithmic tools (like content filters and copyright bots) to police infringement, these systems often operate with minimal transparency or oversight. Lu argues that such ‘black box’ enforcement can erode due process: users may find their content removed or accounts penalized without a clear explanation or meaningful opportunity to appeal. Moreover, vesting quasi-regulatory power in private algorithms, he suggests, creates an accountability gap—one where corporate interests and error-prone AI can trump lawful user activities (eg, parody) with little recourse. To counter this, Lu calls for stronger regulatory checks on automated enforcement, including requirements for transparency in how infringement decisions are made and avenues for users to challenge wrongful removals. His piece underscores that any upgrade of copyright law in the AI era must not unfairly sacrifice individual rights and freedoms; on the contrary, it should impose ‘algorithmic accountability’ so that efficiency in enforcement does not come at the expense of fundamental rights and public interests. His contribution thus injects a note of caution: even as we adapt laws to govern AI, we must also govern the use of AI in law enforcement itself, keeping fundamental rights and values in sight. Rounding out the special issue, Rostam Neuwirth offers a provocative reframing of the entire AI-and-IP debate by shifting our focus to the overarching issue of global inequality. He argues that current discussions about AI and copyright—from questions of AI authorship to liability for AI-induced infringement—are missing the forest for the trees. The more pressing concern, in Neuwirth’s view, is that GAI is contributing to a widening global gap between those who control technology and the creative labour force that fuels it.2 Interestingly, but not surprisingly, his view echoes Lim’s from a different angle. He calls for rediscovering IP law’s original purpose of rewarding creators: rather than merely tweaking doctrines at the margins, the law should be reoriented to ensure that human creativity is justly compensated when AI systems become increasingly dominant. This could entail new legal mechanisms or reforms that guarantee authors a share in the value derived from AI’s use of their works, thereby preventing what he describes as the ‘plenty’ of AI’s output from making human creators ‘poor’. Neuwirth’s contribution, broad in scope and principle, ties together the theme of this special issue by reminding us that the ultimate goal of any AI-related copyright upgrade should focus on building a more equitable creative ecosystem. Together, these six articles demonstrate the multi-dimensional effort required to ‘upgrade’ copyright for the AI era. They range from rethinking fundamental doctrines (authorship and originality), to proposing new legislative and regulatory frameworks (for copyright infringement and for intermediary liability), to cautioning against unintended consequences of enforcement technologies and finally to re-centring the discussion on fairness and societal impact. Several common threads emerge. One is the importance of balance—balancing incentives for innovators with protection for creators, balancing the benefits of AI’s openness with the rights of those whose works are used, and balancing enforcement of rights with preservation of user liberties and the public domain. Another recurring theme is adaptability: copyright law, often rooted in pre-digital assumptions, must evolve in light of AI’s unprecedented capabilities, whether by updating old rules or by devising novel policy tools. Crucially, the contributions also remind us that copyright does not operate in a vacuum. GAI’s challenges intersect with questions of technology governance, competition and social justice. An ‘AI and Copyright Upgrade,’ therefore, it is not simply about doctrinal analysis—it is about ensuring that the copyright system continues to encourage human creativity and innovation while promoting equity and the public good in this new technological landscape. We hope that the ideas presented in this special issue will inform and inspire policymakers, academics and industry leaders as they work towards a future-proof and fair copyright regime for the AI age. Acting as the guest editor of this special issue, I would like to extend my gratitude to all the authors for their insightful contributions and careful research that made this special issue possible. I also thank the Hong Kong Commercial and Maritime Law Centre under the CityUHK School of Law for supporting the conference, which provided the fertile ground for these wonderful discussions. My gratitude also goes to all the conference participants, including Peter Yu, Guobin Cui, Jyh-An Lee, Yahong Li and Orabhund Panuspatthna, who kindly presented their views and shared their valuable comments. Special thanks to my colleague Yang Chen, our centre secretary Claire Dibo Huang and my PhD students Lingjun Gao and Yiyan Zhang, who co-organized the conference with me, for their hard work in setting up all the details. We are additionally grateful to the editorial team of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, especially editor-in-chief Prof. Eleonora Rosati and managing editor Ms. Sarah Harris, for providing the invaluable platform for us, and reviewers who provided valuable feedback and helped shape these papers into their final form. Finally, we acknowledge the support of our institutions and colleagues in fostering an environment where cutting-edge topics like AI and copyright can be rigorously explored. This collective effort has made the ‘AI and Copyright Upgrade’ special issue a reality, and we trust that it will provide useful suggestions for the HK legislators to consider and contribute meaningfully to the ongoing dialogue at the intersection of technology and copyright law.

Albert Valentinovich Pavlyuk, Elena Kirillova

The introduction of smart contracts into the social sphere and their active use requires a detailed analysis. The classification of such contracts and the description of their features will make it possible to specify the legal regulation in the field of the use of these electronic systems. The purpose of the study is to examine the features of smart contracts and propose a more complete (expanded) classification of them for various reasons. The research is based on methods of comparative analysis, synthesis, interpretation of legal norms and a comprehensive analysis of works on the chosen topic by both domestic authors and foreign specialists. The work resulted in additional grounds on which smart contracts can be categorized. The characteristics of smart contracts are also described: efficiency, security, lack of centralization, transparency, peer-to-peer, automation, and protection against fraud. Conclusion: smart contracts can be further classified depending on the environment in which they are executed (the blockchain technologies used), depending on their retribution for the parties to the transaction.