Publication Details
Abstract
Objective: This article presents a comparative legal analysis of NFT regulation in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Uzbekistan, and the United States of America, three jurisdictions that have adopted markedly different regulatory strategies. Method: Building on an analysis of the technological substrate of NFTs (distributed ledgers, smart contracts, tokenization), the article develops a jurisdiction-neutral, two-tier classification of digital assets by legal nature, distinguishing payment, investment, functional, and representative digital assets, and further differentiating representative assets (NFTs) into copyright-based, related-rights-based, and extra-IP subclasses. The article examines leading precedents (Hermès International v. Rothschild; Miramax v. Tarantino; Capitol Records v. ReDigi) and the applicability of the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty to NFT-associated works, identifying three international-law gaps concerning resale royalties, choice-of-law rules, and default licensing terms. Results: The comparative analysis shows that, despite divergent institutional strategies, codified special legislation in Russia, an experimental regulatory-sandbox model in Uzbekistan, and fragmented federal and state-level regulation combined with case law in the United States, all three jurisdictions share a structural gap: none provides a default rule on the scope of rights transferred upon the sale of an NFT. Novelty: On this basis, the article proposes concrete legislative amendments for each jurisdiction and outlines a concept for optional WIPO Model Provisions on Representative Digital Assets, intended to harmonize national approaches without requiring formal treaty ratification.