在国际知识产权法的角度，讨论NFT数字作品的侵权和保护

Non fungible token (NFT) emerges with the marvelous explosion of the Metaverse. NFT digital products are profoundly impacting the existing copyright system, which needs to be amended and responded in time. There is a possibility that it would completely change the distribution pattern of rights and interests in the field of copyright law. Currently, the legal nature of the casting and trading of NFT digital products still remains controversial. The liability of NFT digital product creators as well as service platforms is required to be further identified accordingly. this article starts with the analysis of the right attributes of NFT digital products based on intellectual property law. Subsequently, the related legal issues and countermeasures are discussed, including the exhaustion of the right-holders, the duty of care of the platform, and the assumption of tort liability arising from the transaction. It is suggested that the NFT digital products should be treated with considerable caution and the legal system of NFT digital products should be constructed in the near future.

… At best, NFTs might include a link to a digital copy of a work. As such, this Essay concludes that NFTs … of the underlying work and as such are not subject to copyright infringement claims. …

The attention paid to blockchain technology has always been shadowed by the ever-popular Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not the only life-altering outcome of the blockchain revolution. Each day we come across another useful aspect of blockchain technology: first, it was smart contracts, then initial coin offerings, then security token offerings and, since the beginning of March this year, there has been a lot of hype around non-fungible tokens (NFTs). While different digital art and collectibles are tokenized and sold for mind-boggling amounts, there are some legal questions, including regarding copyright law, that need to be tackled. This article will develop as follows: In Part II, we first describe the main characteristics of blockchain technology, and its important features that impact NFTs. Then, we consider where NFTs should be classified within the different groups of tokens. We define NFTs and consider why they are so popular nowadays and how they interact with smart contracts. In Part III, we discuss the legal implications of NFTs in general and with a focus on some problems that arise in copyright law mostly on the qualification of minting and selling and the consequences of purchasing an NFT.

… is to be tokenized, to avoid an infringement charge the minter of the NFT should own the … [to facilitate resale] is no more copyright infringement than a video rental store displaying its …

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.

NFTs, or Non-Fungible Tokens, are digital assets referring to objects, such as art, music, in-game items, videos, and any other type of work represented in digital form. Two-dimensional artworks, including paintings, drawings, and sculptures, gain legal protection as copyrighted works. The use of NFTs is identified as a potential tool in preventing copyright infringement, verifying authenticity, and providing legal certainty for owners and buyers of digital artworks. This research aims to identify the regulation and protection of copyright for two-dimensional artworks in the context of the use of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) under Law No. 28/2014 on Copyright (UUHC). Through normative research with a statutory approach, this research aims to examine the regulation of copyright infringement of two-dimensional artworks embodied in NFTs and comprehend the legal aspects related to their infringement. The research findings indicate that, although NFTs offer a mechanism to strengthen proof of ownership and authenticity, there remains a lack of effective legal and policy frameworks to protect copyright and support the growth of the digital art industry. The findings underscore the importance of concerted efforts in strengthening copyright protection in the digital age and raising public awareness on the significance of respecting and abiding by copyrighted artworks.

NFT can help art creators to easily register their works for sale using a smart contract system where if the ownership of the work changes hands, the work will become the property of the new owner with proof of a digital certificate. With the steps of making the work so that it can be published in the NFT marketplace media platform and NFT offline gallery. In addition, NFT also has advantages and disadvantages. With that, NFT might be a solution for copyright of a work in the future. However, there are still many questions because NFT is still relatively new and not everyone knows this technology.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are exclusive rights granted by the state to individuals or groups to safeguard their intellectual works. Such works may include inventions, works of art, writings, designs, and trademarks, among others. In Indonesia, IPR is regulated by several laws, including the Patents Law (Law Number 13 of 2016), Copyright Law (Law Number 28 of 2014), and Marks and Geographical Indications Law (Law Number 20 of 2016), among others. These rights encompass copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets, and other related rights. The purpose of IPR protection is to encourage innovation and creativity by providing legal protection for the fruits of intellectual labor, thereby enabling individuals and organizations to reap the benefits of their efforts. Businesses and individuals must understand IPR laws and regulations, as they affect the ownership, licensing, and transfer of intellectual property assets. Violation of two-dimensional works of art and NFTs is a form of crime in digital economic activities, in this case, the government must intervene to overcome this crime. The issue at hand is a direct result of insufficient legal regulations governing the digital realm. Cybercrime, which encompasses a multitude of illicit or perilous activities that take place in the virtual world or through the utilization of computer and internet technology, encompasses copyright infringement. This form of wrongdoing entails the contravention of intellectual property rights, such as the unlawful distribution of music or films, software piracy, or the unauthorized use of trademarks. Legal protection pertains to regulations that are concerned with digital works of art.

The non-fungible tokens trading of digital content works, as an emerging business model, has rapidly developed while also posing challenges to current copyright protection. The NFT infringement incidents in recent years have exposed many issues, such as lack of government regulation, imperfect copyright protection mechanisms, and illegal profits from service platforms. Considering the collusive behavior during the NFT minting process, this study uses evolutionary game theory to model a game composed of three populations: digital content creators; NFT service platforms; and government regulatory agencies. We derived and analyzed the replication dynamics of the game to determine the evolutionary stability strategy. In addition, combined with numerical simulations, we also analyzed the impact of individual factors on the stability of system evolution. This study identifies that the incentives and fines set by the government must be above a certain threshold in order for game results to develop toward an ideal equilibrium state, and the government can try to improve the efficiency of obtaining and updating market information and set dynamic punishment and reward mechanisms based on this. This study also found that excessive rewards are not conducive to the government fulfilling its own regulatory responsibilities. In this regard, the government can use information technology to reduce the cost of regulation, thereby partially offsetting the costs brought about by incentive mechanisms. In addition, the government can also enhance the governance participation of platforms and creators to improve the robustness of digital copyright protection by strengthening media construction and cultivating public copyright awareness. This study helps to understand the complex relationship between NFT service platforms, digital content creators, and government regulatory authorities and proves the practical meaning of countermeasures and suggestions for improving government digital copyright regulations.

… of NFT works that constitute copyright infringement systematically impacts the existing … As we mentioned in the first two sections of our typology of NFT copyright infringement, judges' …

The increasing prevalence of immersive technologies and blockchain platforms in modern commerce has ignited animated debates among intellectual property law scholars on the use of nonfungible tokens (NFTs) in the sale of crypto‐assets or virtual property. Despite the rapidly growing interest in the implications of NFTs for copyright law, particularly in the realm of digital art, relatively little attention has been given to the question of whether the rights of copyright stakeholders (as opposed to the works in which such rights subsist) are capable of tokenisation as NFTs or of being transferred via NFT‐tethered transactions in blockchain environments. This article highlights the dangers of treating copyright as capable of being tokenised or transferred as NFTs on blockchain platforms, and argues that such an approach poses fundamental risks to the ‘nemo dat’ principle in property law. The article further proposes that the right of communication in copyright law should be extended to include the minting of NFTs in relation to digital files containing creative expression, to protect the interests of digital artists from the exploits of rogue crypto‐traders on blockchain platforms.

Non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) are a recent addition to the cryptocurrency universe and have attracted the attention of different stakeholders in the sports world over the last two years. Because they can identify and authenticate particular content, NFTs have become a hot commodity among collectors and investors, in some cases selling for millions of dollars. The sports industry has been a major contributor to NFTs, with athletes, teams, colleges, and leagues issuing or planning to issue NFTs. Because of their recent vintage, NFTs are creating novel and significant intellectual property law issues. This article will explore some of the key issues by utilizing a case study of a hypothetical NFT production of an image found in a painting, which is based on a copyrighted news photo. The article will analyze the copyright issues—whether the NFT can be copyrighted, whether it constitutes a “transformative work,” and whether there are grounds to consider it a derivative or secondary work. This article will also discuss traditional concepts and dilution issues by trademark holders and publicity rights claims against the issuer of the NFTs by the estates of the athletes portrayed based on various state laws. It will then examine the balancing between the rights of estates to protect and profit from their images, and the free expression rights of the creator of the NFT. It will compare two principal standards for making this determination—the “transformative use” test adopted by the majority of federal circuits and the “predominant use” test utilized in Missouri. Recent case law will be cited, in addition to key statutes.

The intersection of NFTs and copyright has sparked debate, particularly over whether NFTs constitute a new form of intellectual property. Despite their association with artistic works and high-profile sales like Beeple’s $69 million artwork, NFTs primarily serve as digital certificates of authenticity and asset location, not as intellectual property themselves. Key issues include the copyright eligibility of NFTs, the implications of tokenizing copyrighted works without consent, and the rights and responsibilities of parties in NFT transactions. While off-chain NFTs merely reference underlying works and lack copyright protection, generative NFTs raise unique challenges, particularly around human contribution. Tokenizing a work without the author’s consent complicates matters further due to the distinction between the NFT and the underlying work. Although NFTs provide creators with new commercialization opportunities, their limitations – such as the ability to mint works multiple times – reduce their effectiveness in copyright management. As technology evolves, NFTs or similar mechanisms may better address these challenges, potentially paving the way for a “DE-IP” framework akin to “DeFi”.

In April 2021, a sketch by celebrated neo-expressionist artist Jean-Michel Basquiat drew considerable press coverage due to a potential copyright dispute. Basquiat, who passed away in 1988, is well known for his use of thematic juxtapositions1 but is also remembered as an artist who died in his prime in tragic circumstances. His artwork is critically acclaimed, and it often sells for considerable amounts ofmoney; a painting calledUntitled sold for over $110 million USD in 2017, making it one of the most expensive art sales in art history.2 Daystorm is an art collective that owned the Basquiat mixed media work called Free Comb with Pagoda,3 and they announced that they would be making a nonfungible token (NFT) of the work. NFTs are the latest hype in the art world: they bring together smart contracts and blockchain technology. This would not have generated much interest if it were not for the fact that their announcement included the statement that the NFT would transfer not only the ownership of the digital file, but the new owner would be given the choice to destroy the original work if they so desired. This drew the ire of art enthusiasts and prompted several legal questions as to whether this would be possible under copyright law.4 There is something decidedly distasteful in the destruction of a physical work of an important 20th-century African-American artist, but

Recent initiatives related to the Metaverse focus on better visualization, like augmented or virtual reality, but also persistent digital objects. To guarantee real ownership of these digital objects, open systems based on public blockchains and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are emerging together with a nascent decentralized and open creator economy. To manage this emerging economy in a more organized way, and fight the so common NFT plagiarism, we propose CopyrightLY, a decentralized application for authorship and copyright management. It provides means to claim content authorship, including supporting evidence. Content and metadata are stored in decentralized storage and registered on the blockchain. A token is used to curate these claims, and potential complaints, by staking it on them. Staking is incentivized by the fact that the token is minted using a bonding curve. The tokenomics include the resolution of complaints and enabling the monetization of curated claims. Monetization is achieved through licensing NFTs with metadata enhanced by semantic technologies. Semantic data makes explicit the reuse conditions transferred with the token while keeping the connection to the underlying copyright claims to improve the trustability of the NFTs. Moreover, the semantic metadata is flexible enough to enable licensing not just in the real world. Licenses can refer to reuses in specific locations in a metaverse, thus facilitating the emergence of creative economies in them.

… copyright protection framework named EduCopyRight-Chain for educational resources using the Ethereum blockchain and non-fungible tokens … blockchain and non-fungible tokens. …

Non‐fungible tokens have caused a complete revolution in the digital space regarding how one thinks of unique assets such as pieces of art, music, and digital collectables, and how one trades them. Originating from blockchain technology, NFTs first came into existence in the year 2014 on a platform known as “Counterparty.” Since then, they have grown as an influential part of the digital economy. NFT is nonfungible, each token is unique and cannot be replaced‐which results in unprecedented possibilities and issues in the digital world. However, with the increasing demand for NFTs, several legal issues have emerged particularly in India, where the laws are still underdeveloped. As NFTs are representations of copyrighted works primary issues arising from NFTs are also related to Copyright. Ambiguities with NFTs are misapprehension over ownership, the challenge of managing and licensing NFTs using smart contracts, and the risk of unauthorized minting of copyrighted materials. This paper addresses these critical issues evaluates the current legal status of NFTs in India and explores their intersection with copyright laws. The focus is particularly on buyers' rights, including ownership complexities, the management of rights through licensing and assignments, and the issues around copyright infringement. The research highlights the urgent need for a legal framework for NFTs, delves into the intricacies of NFT ownership, transfers, and licensing, examines the challenges of unauthorized minting and the enforcement of buyers' rights and offers possible solutions.

While the popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has brought significant profits, legal practitioners have been exposed to unanswered legal concerns behind the frenzy of NFT transactions. Generally, such concerns include those related to the applicability of copyright to NFTs, the legal relationship between an NFT and the tokenized work, and the copyrights associated with the NFT in transactions. The Hangzhou Internet Court released the first NFT-related copyright case, setting a course for the subsequent judicial and business practice of IP-related NFTs nationally and internationally. With these general considerations in mind, the paper briefly introduces what non-fungible tokens are and how they relate to copyright law. Specifically, by interpreting the first NFT-related copyright decision in detail, the paper addresses the legal status of NFT and NFT transactions from the perspective of Chinese Copyright Law, with particular focus on the liability of online platforms and the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine.

The current technological developments have provided convenience for society in accessing the internet, which can be utilized in various fields, one of which is the economy. In economic activities through digital media, the term "digital economy" is used. Digital economic activities cannot be separated from copyright objects that are traded as goods. Considering that examining copyright issues ultimately leads to the concept of law itself, especially regarding efforts to protect the results of two-dimensional art in the form of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), it is important to address this matter. The buying and selling of NFT art in digital media brings fresh opportunities for artists. However, it also creates problems for some parties in protecting their creations from harmful actions. Therefore, this research aims to understand the legal protection for creators of two-dimensional digital artworks, to facilitate economic activities, and to identify the appropriate legal actions for creators in the event of copyright infringement in digital media. In this research, the author employs a normative research method, focusing on literature and secondary data through a juridical-normative approach that is descriptive and analytical in nature. The study reviews and analyzes regulations related to the core issues at hand. The findings of this research clearly show that, in fact, Indonesian Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright and Law Number 19 of 2016 on Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions do not comprehensively regulate two-dimensional digital artworks. To address emerging issues, creators can take legal action in the form of filing a compensation lawsuit in commercial courts, submitting criminal reports, or filing a report to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property to request the removal of content and/or access rights if copyright infringement is suspected in digital media.

The emergence of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in the blockchain environment has prompted many intriguing questions for private law scholars around the world. A question as basic as …

Currently, Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) greatly benefits artificial intelligence (AI) model trading. However, threats such as model piracy and patent grabbing devastatingly violate the copyright of AI models. Current invasive copyright protection solutions mainly rely on watermarking to embed specific information into AI models, which inevitably decreases the accuracy. While non-invasive schemes, such as adversarial samples, cannot guarantee uniqueness as the adversarial sample generation algorithm would be known to all traders, and thus need to be changed after trading. To enable the ownership information transferable across AI model trading, we propose a blockchain-driven Non-Fungible Token (NFT) approach for trading-oriented AI model copyright protection. We design a mapping mechanism from AI models parameters to NFTs which can identify uniqueness and ownership of AI models across trading. Besides, a reputation-based rewards and penalties scheme is proposed to prevent NFT piracy. Lastly, the evaluation verifies the applicability of our approach.

During early 2021 reports emerge of newfound excitement in the art world as a landmark sale of digital art for $ 69 million takes place. Fueled in part by the wealth recently created from digital currencies, major art dealers such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s embrace this new development. What then are nonfungible tokens, how is this related to the blockchain and what do we know about this ancient market for digital art? It now appears that digital art can be added to the growing list of uses for blockchain technology now becoming a part of modern life. This article proceeds in seven parts. First, we discuss the new and explosive market for digital art. Second, we explore the evolution of the digital world and virtual property. Third, is an explanation and historical account of the blockchain and virtual currencies. Fourth, we explore nonfungible tokens. Fifth, we present a few thoughts about the future of digital property. And last, we conclude. This dramatic extention of blockchain and other digital technology to the world of art and music represents a new and exciting platform for creative expression. We believe this paper is a valuable addition to the literature by providing a readable introduction and overview of what is now known about the likely impact of blockchain technology and nonfungible tokens to music and art. This important development should have significant impact on the future of innovation and property law.

… market and Internet platforms, associated with reproduction and further use in the virtual … that reproduction of a museum object in the digital form of NFT is not equal to reproduction …

The article was first published in English language by Fordham Law Review. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.eduFor original publication: Bobek, H. (2023). To mint or not to mint: non-fungible tokens and the right of publicity. Fordham Law Review, 92(2), 639.Publication URL: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol92/iss2/12Objective: to study the legal regulation of NFT technology under the US legislation and to develop proposals to minimize offenses involving its use, including those related to violations of the right to publicity.Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in historical development and functioning in the context of the totality of objective and subjective factors, which predetermined the following research methods formal-logical and sociological.Results: NFT technology creates new challenges in the field of protecting the right to publicity. Using NFT to violate the right to publicity creates serious difficulties for copyright holders seeking compensation for the damage caused. The difficulty of protecting the right to publicity in this market is due to the unique democratic nature of the token, the widespread anonymity of NFTs and the irreversibility of transactions with them, as well as the uncertainty of contractual terms with respect to secondary buyers.Scientific novelty: based on the analysis of judicial practice, the article examines the issues of violation of the right to publicity arising in connection with the NFT and possible approaches to this problem. Legal scholars and commentators argue that certain features of NFTs pose pronounced threats to the right of publicity, namely the technology’s novelty, democratized nature, anonymization of creators, transferability across platforms, and immutability. To combat these threats, the author proposes that rights owners should enter into right of publicity license agreements; that NFT platforms should strengthen their terms of service and develop higher barriers of entry for users; and, finally, that courts should order that infringing NFTs be “burned”.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to the legal regulation of NFT technology.

ABSTRACT 2021 was a miraculous year for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which led to confusion among observers of the phenomenon from both the art industry and regulatory authorities. This article provides a dispassionate analysis of the value of NFTs from an artist’s and intellectual property (IP) perspective. In the longer term, NFTs could improve the fate of artists to authenticate their works, set their conditions and get a resale compensation per transaction. This could happen, once their underlying works can be minted too, so that an NFT entails more than just a self-referential certificate. The article focuses on the US jurisdiction where the NFT phenomenon originated and only touches upon the EU jurisdiction in regard to the droit de suite right and Chinese jurisdiction in regard to the transmutation of NFTs into the speculation-proof ‘digital collectibles’. The introduction provides a primer on the blockchain, NFTs, and the paradox of digital uniqueness and authenticity. Section II addresses the value game of art before and after the emergence of NFTs. Section III investigates the commercial side of NFT art and its new version of Maecenas. Section IV provides an analysis of the rights of the NFT holder versus the rights of the artist from an IP perspective; and focuses on unauthorized use of underlying works and regulation in the US and China. Section V provides the conclusions and contemplates whether NFTs will redefine the future of art and artists: from a showcase of bragging rights to an essential tool for artists to protect their IP rights.

… creator of a work the right to control reproduction of the work, … site in 2022 for minting, selling, and trading NFTs,39 there is … royalty percentage for all of the NFTs you will mint under that …

This chapter investigates the complex contractual dynamics that underpin the transfer of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) within online marketplaces. Particularly, it offers a critical assessment of the impact that platform terms of service (ToS) have on shaping rights and obligations in NFT transactions. Case studies from prominent NFT online marketplaces illustrate that, while these marketplaces claim to act as third-party intermediaries, their ToS significantly dictate the enforceability of IP rights, the extent of user protections, and the procedural rules surrounding NFT transactions. The chapter then examines the relevance and application of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) to NFT marketplaces, pressing NFT marketplaces to reassess and align their ToS towards the goals of transparency and fairness. Ultimately, the discussion aims to provide insights into the intersection of contract law, NFTs, and the EU DSA, offering an initial understanding of the enforcement challenges and opportunities presented by the EU’s platform governance approach in the evolving NFT marketplace ecosystem.

As non-fungible tokens (NFTs) become more commonly collected, questions arise as to the rights owned by purchasers of NFTs. Do NFTs fall under the following categories: real or personal properties; securities or commodities; or copyright works? Many scholars have gone into great detail in these respects, but not looked at the NFT marketplaces on which NFTs are purchased. They have argued that rights in NFTs are analogous to rights in property, securities and copyright’s exclusive bundle of rights, among other things. In this article, I go further to examine selected marketplaces OpenSea and Rarible’s user policies and interfaces, to garner insight on the rights NFT purchasers have. I also examine the latest developments, including cases decided on NFTs, as well as practical developments on the marketplaces, including the introduction of selected licences for NFT projects. Thereafter, I conclude on the rights NFT purchasers hold, the relevance of the copyright system and ultimately, what could support the flourishing of NFT marketplaces.

The invention of disruptive technologies broadens the horizon of opportunities for intellectual property owners. The very idea of selling copyright works in a digital space and using the same to form a digital currency is disruptive. This is one opportunity Non-Fungible Token (NFT) offers. But that disruptiveness raises certain questions and provoke the consciousness to wonder if NFTs are a form of intellectual property, or whether NFT would shift the paradigm of copyright law as we know it. Governments through her agencies are also caught in the unrestlessness of deciphering what NFT means and whether it holds any value for intellectual property. This article will address the relationship between NFT and copyright, the forseeable problems and solutions, and how NFTs are channels for intellectual property commercialisation.

… OSP liability on NFT platforms… copyright issues related to the OSP of the NFT platform based on the technical analysis of the NFT minting process such as IPFS uploading of copyrighted …

The rapid development of blockchain technology has led to the emergence of NFT-based (non-fungible token) digital collectibles, which are becoming a new direction within the digital economy and the cultural industry. NFT technology enables the uniqueness of digital assets, verification of ownership, and transparency of transactions. However, this phenomenon also generates a number of complex legal issues. In particular, the uncertain legal status of NFT assets, risks of intellectual property infringement, and the lack of clearly defined mechanisms for platform liability and user rights protection pose significant challenges to existing legal systems. Therefore, a comprehensive academic analysis of the legal protection of NFT digital collectibles is of particular relevance. The purpose of the study is to determine the legal nature of NFT digital collectibles, analyze the main theoretical approaches to their legal status, and substantiate regulatory mechanisms aimed at reducing legal risks in the NFT market. The study applies the method of literature analysis. Relevant domestic and international academic publications on NFT technology, digital asset law, and intellectual property were examined, alongside an analysis of current legislation and judicial practice. In addition, practical legal disputes and real cases related to the functioning of the NFT market were reviewed. The research identifies two main legal characteristics of NFT digital collectibles. First, NFT certificates recorded on blockchain platforms possess the legal status of data-based property rights. Second, the underlying digital content associated with NFTs should be considered a form of virtual property. Furthermore, the study substantiates the need to classify NFT trading platforms, depending on their business models, as either technical service providers or content service providers. It also demonstrates the necessity of proportionally allocating legal responsibilities to platforms based on their control capabilities and the extent of economic benefits they derive. The proposed approaches contribute to improving the legal regulatory framework for NFT digital collectibles, strengthening intellectual property protection, and clarifying legal relations between platforms and users. The findings may serve as a theoretical foundation for developing effective governance mechanisms for the digital asset market and ensuring its sustainable and secure development.

… and platform liability in the metaverse vis-à-vis copyright works … the owner of the NFT, it is important that the copyright in the … process of minting an NFT, all copyright clearances, must be …

NFT collections are the result of the convergence of blockchain and smart contract technology with a specific digital content, comprising a technology layer and a content layer. The fundamental aspect of NFT collections is the usufructuary right to the digital content. The aforementioned digital content is copyrightable, which may in turn result in the trading of NFT collections being subject to copyright laws. The sale and transfer of collections can be considered to exist along three distinct appraoches of regulation: the right of distribution, the right of communication through information network, and non-infringement. It can be argued that collections are not objects of ownership. Thus, the nature of their usufruct does not unduly interfere with the proprietary style of copyright. Consequently, it could be proposed that the sale and transfer of collections cannot be subject to distribution rights regulation, either directly or by analogy. The approach of non-infringement presents significant systemic challenges in the context of legal application and fails to address the need for formalization of industry development. The sale and transfer are consistent with the constituent elements of the act communication through information network and can effectively overcome the inherent disadvantages of the aforementioned path. Therefore, it should be adopted. With regard to the additional burden of authorization created by the approach, the industry can achieve relief through the introduction of industry self-regulatory conventions or guidelines, and so on.

Abstract Non-fungible token (NFT) technology heralds a transformative era for the creative industry, offering unprecedented advantages to individual creators. For a robust and sustainable NFT trading ecosystem, it is imperative to ensure rigorous copyright protection. This article posits that an NFTized digital copyrighted work should be perceived as a virtual property, with its intrinsic value residing in the token itself. Given that NFT transactions implicate the exclusive rights of copyright holders, they ought to be under the purview of these rights holders. Yet, it is crucial to recognize that NFTs, in isolation, are not a panacea for addressing copyright infringements related to them. Given the pivotal role of NFT platforms in facilitating these transactions, this article advocates for a holistic regulatory framework that governs the conduct of these platforms, thereby fostering the sustainable growth of the NFT ecosystem in China.

… NFT infringement case, common copyright infringement also includes that the NFT minters cooperate with the copyright … as NFT for sale; or that the original creators agree to transfer the …

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are transforming the commercialisation of digital art by establishing unique blockchain identifiers that ensure authenticity and certify subsequent transactions. However, the transfer of control over an NFT does not automatically include the transfer of the associated copyrights, thereby creating legal uncertainty as to what rights are actually acquired. This interdisciplinary project between engineering and law proposes the design of a smart contract, based on the ERC-721 standard, to manage the transfer of property rights linked to digital artworks represented as NFTs. The accompanying legal contract incorporates essential clauses covering the identification of the parties, a description of the artwork and its link to the token, pricing, royalties, and the terms of rights transfer. The proposal seeks to integrate blockchain technology with existing legal frameworks, offering an innovative solution that strengthens legal certainty in the transfer of copyright within digital environments.

The emergence of the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) was driven by the transformation of the digital world. NFT is now an investment option for the majority of investors. NFT is a digital asset that defines original artworks, such as a painting, drawing, piece of music, or in-game item, and is maintained in a blockchain-based ledger where the purchasing and selling process is conducted using cryptocurrency. As a form of copyright protection, the presence of NFT as a digital asset is fraught with complications. Digitizing an artwork that is subsequently converted to NFT infringes the original creator's copyright since someone may produce a digital version of another's work without their consent. The existing laws and regulations are yet to govern the ownership of NFTs that infringe the copyrights of others; thus, a solution is required, one of which is by the use of smart contracts. This is normative-juridical research, namely study undertaken by reviewing library resources or secondary sources. This study came into the conclusion that with the present state of technology, smart contracts cannot identify Copyright mistakes that are translated to NFT. Through human intervention, the blockchain network requires the addition of new applications.Keywords: Non-Fungible Token, Copyright, Smart Contract

In the new media communication environment, digital art faces severe infringement challenges -diversified forms, fast spread, and cross-platform supervision difficulties.Traditional copyright protection struggles to address these effectively.This study focuses on the copyright security issues of NFT digital artworks in new media communication, and proposes a comprehensive protection framework that integrates blockchain-based rights confirmation, smart contract authorisation, and multi-level monitoring and traceability mechanisms.The experimental results show that: 1) in terms of infringement detection, the integrated method is significantly superior to traditional methods in scenarios of Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) compression and central cropping, and its F1-score reaches 94.4%; 2) in terms of blockchain-based evidence storage, for a sample size of one thousand, the evidence integrity reaches 97.9%, the traceability accuracy reaches 96.7%, and the anti-tampering rate reaches 97.5%.The study has positive significance for promoting the healthy development of the digital art industry.

This introductory chapter provides a concise comparative overview of the most relevant challenges posed by NFTs to copyright law, analyses common interpretative misunderstandings (e.g. what is an NFT and what rights does it confer?) and legal gaps surrounding NFTs, as evidenced by some lawsuits that have been filed before European and non-European courts. It thus tries to bring some clarity on the application of copyright rules in NFTs matters, while identifying areas where additional legislative intervention is still needed to achieve legal certainty and the proper and balanced functioning of the system.

… image’s IPFS CID, in an ERC-721 smart contract [6]. This design enables decentralized verification of detached images while preserving compatibility with existing NFT infrastructure. …

… to the legal status of NFTs and IP law implications associated … , IP protection of NFTs, and whether NFTs created by AI can … NFTs to provide insights into the evolving landscape of NFTs …

The objects of digital trade are often subject to intellectual property (IP) protection. The exclusionary nature of IP rights, which is deemed to incentivise and reward the creation of new goods, however, is a mechanism developed in the pre-digital era and can therefore not be seamlessly transposed to digital goods and services. This chapter outlines the Janus-headed nature of IP rights for digital trade, on the one hand enabling it while also having the ability to hamper it. It first looks at the interfaces of IP with digitisation and trade in order to set the scene and then outlines its effects on digital trade and how regulators have sought to address the issues. The chapter also looks at some current issues of the interface of digital trade and IP, such as digital exhaustion, intermediary liability and the impact of new technologies, such as blockchain technology and NFTs as well as 3D printing.