Blockchain Papers

İpek Söğüt

No abstract is available for this record.

Manlio Frigo, Silvia Stabile

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.

Sara Molina Pérez Tomé

No abstract is available for this record.

Laurie Nussdorfer

Notarial archives were one of the richest sources of new knowledge about early modern continental European society to be discovered by twentieth-century historians.1 In areas influenced by Roman law even people who could not write or read themselves went to notaries; the notaries’ archives therefore provided unprecedented access to the social and economic life of the past. Only recently, however, have scholars begun to examine the nature of the notarial record and to ask what made it so ubiquitous and what its relation was to the rest of the proliferating documentation of the early modern era.2 Italians of the Middle Ages invented notaries and their unique brand of powerful writing, and notarial records in Italy bear the unmistakable marks of medieval Italy’s commercial dynamism and political fragmentation. Papal Rome, which had followed rather than led these early developments, was able to catch up in the early modern period. Indeed, the Roman case illustrates especially well the tensions inherent in this special form of writing and the changing economic and political forces that shaped its preservation or loss. Although scribes producing official records had existed in many ancient societies, what made the medieval Italian notary unique was that the documents he drafted were a superior form of proof in a court of law. Medieval jurists drew a distinction between writing by authorized individuals, such as notaries or court recorders (cancellieri), which they called public writing (scriptura publica), and the written transactions of private persons (scriptura privata). At the same time, the rising city states of northern and central Italy privileged public writing by declaring it the equivalent of two witnesses, which meant that it met the standard of a ‘full proof’.3 Growing urban economies with few institutional supports for commerce turned to the written contract or testament, backed up by the threat of litigation, as a particularly desirable means of enforcing business compacts or dictating the disposition of property by the dying. Authorized writers who could draw up such agreements and endow them with public credibility (publica fides) were useful to them. This is the context in which the notary emerged as a professional writer in medieval Italy. From the beginning there was an odd mixture of public and private — if these terms can be applied to pre-modern realities — in the way that the notary was defined. Not unlike the draper or cobbler, he was a private individual who had to earn his living, but instead of cloth or shoes the wares he sold were believable documents. By law what he wrote had a kind of trustworthiness that no other writing could match, but he made a living by selling it. The same hand that created authoritative documents stretched out to receive payment for them, not once but repeatedly. The professionals that medieval Italian jurists and cities had endowed with public fides operated as entrepreneurs seeking business from clients and salaries as court recorders. This hybrid physiognomy meant that the products of the notary’s pen had a peculiar character as commodities. Customers did not necessarily take a document away with them; they paid the notary for his services, but expected him to preserve the record of their transaction. His clients’ records were considered a business asset belonging to the notary from which he could continue to earn fees by making copies. Yet this was a type of asset about which the city could make laws: to set its price, dictate its forms or ensure its preservation. The dual nature of the notarial document as a legally authorized kind of writing and a source of income for the notary played a crucial role in the history of Italian, and particularly Roman, notarial archives. The institutions that might apply external pressure to safeguard notarial records in late medieval Italy tended to be of two kinds with two different preservation models: city governments (public registry model) or local notarial organizations (professional model).4 Over the course of the early modern period the emerging regional states also began to play a role. Whether held by government or profession, questions immediately arose about which documents should be kept and about the modalities of recording them. Notaries produced various types of records, contracts and wills for private customers and judicial acts for government officials and tribunals. Which should be preserved and how should they be accessed? Was it necessary to retain only the acts of notaries who had died without heirs in the profession or those of all deceased notaries? Or should all notarial writing be captured in an ongoing way, not just the volumes that might go astray due to a notary’s death? If so, how could the privacy of these transactions be safeguarded, and could the public fisc draw some profit, or at least cover its costs, from the business the notaries were transcribing? Where preservation focused on what should happen to notarial acts after the death of the notary who had drawn them up, regulations varied strikingly. In Milan in 1396 the notarial college demanded that they go to a fellow member, whereas in Piedmont in 1430 the prince required that they be given to a son or neighbouring notary. Where the aim was to keep track of, and also to tax, current valuable property exchanges, there was more homogeneity. In 1265, Bologna was the first Italian city to establish a public registry of such notarial acts, and this option spread widely among the towns of the Po Valley in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In this scenario scribes employed by the government copied the key features of the agreements into a set of official registers, while the notaries retained ownership and possession of the original documents.5 According to Marino Berengo, regardless of whether legislation targeted the acts of dead or living notaries, it was the nature of the local political regime that dictated concern about their preservation.6 Merchant-dominated city republics were much more likely to care about what happened to notarial documents than princely regimes with a strong feudal class. Politics might even render local elites suspicious of the ruler’s efforts to establish notarial archives, as in sixteenth-century Naples where citizens first requested the registry and then rejected it for fear that it would give their Spanish king too much information about their wealth. The Capitoline hill, centre of civic government in Rome, was the focus of the judicial work of the Capitoline notaries and the site of their archive. Open Access Image from the Davison Art Centre, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut. The papacy of course had its own rules for the notaries of the papal curia. The deepening of this divided system of governance, and multiplication of types of notaries, intensified in the 1390s after the popes returned to Rome. They increased the number of jurisdictions and made them more exclusive than they had been before. By the fifteenth century Rome was well on its way to a tripartite system of tribunals (each with civil and criminal powers): curial, ecclesiastical and lay (Capitoline).9 No single authority controlled the Roman notaries who practised in these courts, and the notaries themselves never constituted a closed corporation, as occurred in most northern and central Italian cities. Representing initially all the notaries and, after 1507, those working for the municipality and for lay citizens, was a loose body called the college of city notaries [collegium notarii urbis].10 Fragmented jurisdictions and an open notarial profession had had baleful effects on the preservation of notarial documents in Rome.11 The college of city notaries made the first short-lived intervention to halt the dispersion. In 1446 it ordered the heirs of notaries who were not members of the profession themselves to bring their volumes (protocols) to the church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli to be kept in locked chests, a regulation that was rescinded in 1494.12 Going beyond the traditional method of enforcement by threat of fines it also ordered living notaries to exhibit their properly labelled protocols annually to college officials.13 Laudable as it was, storing papers in locked chests could scarcely be described as an archival vision. The Renaissance papacy made the first effort to create an actual notarial archive, the Archivio of the Roman Curia. It was a typically grandiose gesture by Pope Julius II (1503–13), and it showed that the popes were going to their own it to document preservation as to so much Julius made the role by selling notarial but he features of the public registry on of his Pope Julius created and up for notarial this new of the of of the Roman he it the of recording the acts of all notaries in the and in the city in a By with a public registry the to notarial archives by all early modern Julius was in its to all the between notaries working for the papal and citizens that had been by his and he to all types of notarial writing, business acts and judicial acts least from papal of notaries, living and the for his and the was more the fear that the of notaries working for the would take their volumes with them they returned to their The of legislation was even more was in his of notaries, the who were with the Capitoline was a in the new college made for the papal but it was not notaries who them, to the of all this notarial business had to be an to the same Over — and therefore the of acts — The by the Archivio of the Roman was a few of It had only a few at the it was by a new papal archive, the Archivio in of the legislation of was more By up a notarial for notaries the papacy had a into the profession, and created a more for notaries and This working for the court and lay a with the and to be as the rather than it was no that it was the that the effort to preserve notarial records by the Archivio in the political is By the century notarial records was a of in the that was the did not in with the papacy the same its new showed that it to keep with its by the same The Archivio targeted the same documents that the notarial college had first to in 1446 — the protocols of deceased city can only read this as a that the had heirs of notaries did not with the to them The for this for heirs into up the notarial records in their possession and for to keep them and an to The of the new was much than that of Julius Archivio of the Roman it only to those protocols that might go on a notary’s but the of its were more locked with the dead notary’s would not only the documents in but would also safeguard the of heirs to fees from made from their a regulation was as an to and it was, for the Archivio to a volumes it was by papal legislation of that even it no had a to the protocols of deceased notaries, it had to preserve those it This would bring a between the notaries and their the but by that — more than a century — the papacy had to the by notaries and their documents in Rome. The papacy of was a for the Capitoline notaries, as it their open college into a closed of it had on the notaries’ documents. This was in was the first to the of public notarial archives the Papal he to a private he the two Rome and they had some kind of notarial archives It was not that a Pope on Rome the of a notarial archive, an unlike Julius would the between and Capitoline notaries and also up the papers of all other notaries in the this he a of and his it the Archivio from a he had early followed an into a in the Roman curia. It have been the of the of who had a notarial in that the of a notarial for The however, were to the cloth of Roman realities where the most notarial had been from the papacy the period to in the Archivio to not of a number of notarial of property and on It required notaries to bring these to the new and an In to the of the notaries who had their the Archivio would give citizens the to out which notary had drawn up the they but not to have a made of it. Customers had to the of that notary to for the that would in The Archivio also of the of or private notaries who practised in Rome, on a them to a for the first and for a as the for their In a also the the kept of the in the of the rather than it out as had he ordered the of notarial archives in the Papal a of the as the or of the and it the of his and of he made This powerful was not by a In to the new the the of notaries to the of one of their members for a of had been the of Julius archival and to the was not more than a some of his for the new archive, it and it out to a private this individual went fees did not cover his This have been an early that were not in as they were In to make an of the notarial to for copies. he so it would have been a in which had on Although he authority to to an official in there is no that the followed on the threat of It was not after death in and the of the from the of that the Archivio In Pope his for the and the rules about payment to the of notaries to bring in of wills and contracts and to a new regulations the to the notaries’ paid the to the Archivio which was on their while the notaries the they were The returned to traditional means of by the of This system kept the but at a the had no to make notaries in their and many did that the did not of notarial by Pope Indeed, this was only one of in a of the profession, the first of its kind in Rome. on by a between the and the Capitoline notaries where to the Archivio the authorized an into Roman notarial archives and an by of the papal and Capitoline notaries The of acts that had not been copied and to the Archivio of wills that had never been and loose papers and volumes of in the Archivio They also discovered that of papal notaries had the archival legislation had an unprecedented in the actual of the two notarial archives, but in the his was It was to the rules and to it did more than as in the case of the Archivio where papal officials the Capitoline notaries’ that they the to read the in the and protocols and them to of Although a some there had been in for the Archivio did not the effort in the and did not establish of the The of this should If notaries were by public and if public archives held their how could such a as a private notarial even In the notary was a The of the notary’s meant that he the between the and the The that medieval made with Italian notaries had a on how they kept their It the profession the to fees not only at the of the original but also at an or of the original document was This was a or to a would be and only notary or his held the same record in his in the notary’s the of the It also to that clients a public of one of their own or one of their or acts, they the of the the notary or the notary’s a for the of it and of a the law that notarial records were in Rome it did not their to with them they Although they could be protocols were not to be sold or The number of medieval protocols in Rome that enforcement of these was in the protocols themselves as the of notarial clients made a of recording the of the notary and the of the one they or their might to the original notary’s and an official of the The nature of notarial acts shaped their preservation in different on whether the profession was open to one and all the first of in the or to closed of of this however, the whether they were the notarial the or the showed for the of of notarial were they that they made no to them in a public at as have the fifteenth It was only then that Rome its first intervention to these which was to those that had into the of or who were not this intervention was short-lived well have had to with the that storing them in locked chests in a church did not to of the of heirs to fees from those same In the Archivio in the city went to to heirs that their property would be and even it was no in their Although their was to the volumes of notaries who had died without heirs in the profession, they could not even those without and belonging to notaries even these efforts at The character of notarial writing in turned the Capitoline notaries’ into which he to and sold for the notaries them, this of professionals a closed of from their archival as the Capitoline they were to the civil of the Capitoline court for clients’ litigation, but to all their other as the notarial acts they produced no to them but to their was the selling he a notarial on the The was the to fees for judicial business at the Capitoline not a notarial all other in Rome, were meant and with for a few of these were likely to be notaries, the authorized the of a new the college of notaries of the Capitoline court to actual notaries who as would the of would then make individual contracts with in for a they would them with and, the documents of the In the notarial college with the papacy to some of the that to a that increased their commercial as well as their In for its to a to the the college the for to or Capitoline notarial rather than them to the papal Although this made them a more than notarial it also and them as forms of In it made it even to who the The the of a Capitoline and the to a in a Capitoline the which notaries in Rome, a of privileged and the rest of the profession to with them or to to as The Capitoline notaries at that for scribes who them in their and of the however, the economic of the Capitoline notaries were more than they might The of after the of the Capitoline notaries who could not or who were not to an At the of the were who held that were at the were those who a of an just its from a of these — or — could also be by of notaries, with or with In and however, there was no that the by would be and, did not cover costs, and were an forms of property in early modern Rome were and most were the notarial was the to which the that it into were to Although led the way, the popes too were about how notaries should write and keep their at the same that they were selling notarial for regulations to whether they targeted business acts or judicial acts or but aim at especially the between and in legislation about contracts the to create a a of the to all of these annually into protocols were and to an of at the beginning of By what papal notarial writing in judicial particularly in civil was the of to bring their to court rather than to In a that their to make to the popes economies on notaries in to the of civil The two that the among the Capitoline notaries, in by were the of the for notarial acts and the of to the same as public as the of judicial the of fees for notarial with new Although the of notarial acts was not necessarily its the of regulation did have effects on document preservation. without new of to have in the which that loose contracts or wills did not go the rules created new of access among Indeed, that the in the be and that with the of the made it for clients to their records they the notary. they did not even have to to at first public notarial in the forces of and judicial were to create notarial archives. protocols and volumes began to in the that the of notarial drew up a new They were the most and their increased with the of or new volumes of business acts and at least one of judicial acts a in most Capitoline and to the spread of these new archival among the Capitoline notaries in the early of notarial made it in the contracts they wrote that for the papers lay with the They not only that notaries with legislation on and their acts but also that they never the The between and notaries meant that to their could who would not only their but also their which was to in In to their to the of the Capitoline notaries were to the of their have clients could the notary’s to his protocols or his records of judicial This access an unmistakable on notarial It was not of for a to his notary to the Roman criminal if one of his documents in a of was from the The was not but a of public In the of to the of legislation on notarial writing, clients themselves provided a of The papal of notarial archives and to draw up a on the of public The demanded that notaries in of the volumes in their In to the that many documents were in the Archivio and that of had never been turned into the Archivio the of protocols going to the late century in the Capitoline Although they for not of notarial acts to the Archivio they had few about their of the The that notaries produced in the of an of the which all notarial records in Rome were never on such a with a unique of what documents existed at that to with what the archives the Capitoline notaries, the college and the most likely to be out by city the is The preservation of the protocols is the original contracts and wills made between the that the were first sold in and the of have to They form the of the volumes in the archival as the in Archivio what notaries in early modern Rome did would be for that the could be in those of They would be however, or at least The also the of a archive, the judicial acts of the Capitoline notaries, the records of litigation, and to or or in the in they have all but According to the for between and the notarial of produced volumes of the record of all the judicial but only have which were to be kept in volumes of their in contracts and wills have they had to notaries who fees from them for no one was in for of or acts had no life as and between the early and the late or of be the key to so many early modern citizens notarial services, not only notaries the of civil but acts up than other in If a had that a given property might be or he was to that to have a notary draw up, and the The between and notarial records is to the of these but it is a that is all but in the Roman archives than those in the cities of northern and central Roman did not to notarial the early modern period. they did so, notarial archives emerged as a site of political between city and which was by the a of legislation and the of new notarial archives, however, governments in Rome were not able to notarial documents or could notaries themselves be on for this the that what them from other writers was their archival the wares they sold had no they had the original in their It was the early modern of a new form of the notarial with its which the most means of preservation. In this new regime of notarial backed up by civil the that notarial acts would be however, it was the documents that had the to that were the most likely to