Archives: Topics
As artificial intelligence has become more and more of a hot topic, it seems like metaverse has faded somewhat into the background. But that is only appearances. Recent developments by tech giants like Apple and Meta, with the unveiling of VisionPro headsets and Ray-Ban smart glasses, respectively, just show that metaverse is continuing to evolve. And government, academia, business and civil society are also showing more interest in the metaverse from along the way, with metaverse governance and value creation in particular. Metaverse is alive and kicking, that much is clear.
METAVERSE
And metaverse also offers a lot of prospects in the economic field. The World Economic Forum estimates that the economic impact of the metaverse will reach at least $1.91 trillion by 2030 and as much as $4.44 trillion in an optimistic scenario. So the impact of the metaverse is huge and offers a lot of prospects for almost all sectors, including the legal profession.
First, there are many legal challenges for the metaverse itself, in which lawyers can play an important role. The digital world of the metaverse is a new world that requires new regulations. And until these new regulations are created, answers must be sought to many legal questions that will arise in the metaverse.
The first question we can already ask is who governs the metaverse. International law stipulates that states possess sovereignty on land, sea and air. But what about the virtual world? Can states assert their sovereignty even this virtual world? Dubai and Seoul, for example, are building twin cities in the metaverse. Who then decides what rules will apply within these virtual twins?
And within just about every branch of law too, the metaverse will pose special problems. In employment law, for example, the question of who owns an avatar or a hologram will have to be answered. Is it the employee or the employer? In family law, we will have to deal with digital immortality. Can heirs allow a deceased person to continue living digitally in the form of an avatar or a hologram? And what about digital real estate in, say, Decentraland? Should we provide building regulations here? And what about the legal status of DAOs, the ‘decentralised autonomous organisations’? And let us not forget dispute resolution in case of problems in the metaverse. Where should we locate this dispute? Which law should be applied and which courts have jurisdiction?
This is only a brief overview of the many legal questions that will arise in the metaverse and that lawyers will have to deal with.
But not only in the legal field, also in the economic field the metaverse offers opportunities for the legal profession, and we already see lawyers taking the first careful steps in the metaverse. Mainly in the USA, there are already several law firms branding themselves as metaverse lawyers and VR-injury lawyers and trying to make a business case for compliance and litigation in the metaverse.
LEGAL
But that, of course, is the only opportunity that presents itself for the legal profession. Seminars, meetings with clients, it can all be done in a virtual environment within the metaverse. As can dispute resolution. In Columbia, Judge Maria Quinones Triana’s organised a first hearing in Horizon World (Meta) on 15 February 2023. ( Colombia court moves to metaverse to host hearing | Reuters ) And meanwhile, the Abu Dhabi Global Market Arbitration Centre has also enabled mediation in the metaverse. (adgm.com)
Meanwhile, quite a few law firms have also set up offices in the metaverse. Canadian lawyer Madaline Zannes, for example ( Bing Video’s ), who also founded the Metaverse Bar Association. (metba.io) And Belgian metaverse company Threedee World has even built its own metaverse for the legal community Lawland ( Fairtual Technologies | Lawland ) with its own Lawland app. ( (1) Lawland | For Legal & Finance – Support Creators Content )
So the metaverse is here to stay, and will have a huge impact on the legal profession as well. Stay tuned.
#metaverse #dao #advocatuur
Meer informatie over dit topic?
Contacteer ons via infotax@bloom-law.be
Would you like to know more?
The new world of the metaverse offers new and unprecedented opportunities for the economy. A lot of companies, meanwhile, are exploring the possibilities of the metaverse to increase their brand awareness and reach new customers. Consequently, more and more virtual marketplaces are emerging in the metaverse, offering a range of products and services to the public, from virtual real estate to virtual fashion.
The metaverse makes it possible for businesses and consumers to take their customers through virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) into an immersive environment that very much approximates the physical commerce experience. This is the major difference between e-commerce and v-commerce. Where E-commerce is limited to offering goods and services on classic 2D websites, V-commerce, through 3D websites, makes it possible for customers, for example, to visit virtual showrooms, try on products virtually and even try on clothes virtually.
For example, companies such as IKEA and West Elm make it possible for their customers to virtually test out what furniture will look like in their homes. At the clothing company Levi’s, customers can try on different styles of jeans via VR headsets. And also at the makeup company Sephora, customers can use VR headsets to try on different makeup products.
These are just a few examples to show how v-commerce is on the rise, and becoming a major business. According to the World Economic Forum, by 2035 the metaverse would account for a market of 489 billion euros in Europe and $760 billion in the USA. Therefore, the economic importance of the metaverse can no longer be underestimated.
Legal questions
But with the emergence of a new economy, various legal questions naturally arise. Since v-commerce transactions often take place across international borders, many legal discussions may arise, especially if it turns out that the regulation of metaverse trade differs from country to country. Consequently, v-commerce raises many new legal challenges, including in the areas of consumer protection (such as ensuring consumers’ rights to information, cancellation, refunds), privacy, intellectual property and dispute resolution.
European regulation
At European level, these problems have already been partly anticipated with the Digital Service Act and the Digital Markets Act. These European regulations must ensure free and safe access to the “Internet” and curb the dominant position of dominant players. For example, the Digital Service Act provides for far-reaching transparency obligations for targeted online marketing based on user profiles and algorithms, and online platforms must clearly know who the actual seller on their platform is (“know your customer”). In turn, the Digital Markets Act provides for measures to enable more competition between the large and smaller online platforms, such as opening up messaging apps, allowing professional providers to offer their products or services on other platforms as well, and fair access to social media, search engines and app stores.
The Digital Service Act and the Digital Markets Act are undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but by no means sufficient to settle all legal issues related to V-commerce. Therefore, we can only call for a Metaverse Act to be provided asap to regulate commerce in the virtual world and provide adequate legal protection for consumers.
@MichelMaus
#metaverse #digitalserviceact #digitalmarketsact
Eager to learn more about this?
Contact us at infotax@bloom-law.be
Would you like to know more?
Digital art, booming business.
In recent years, digital art experienced a huge boom. Several digital artworks were sold for very large sums under the form of NFTs at prestigious auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s or on new dedicated auction sites such as Opensea or Rarible. For instance, the NFT of the digital artwork Everydays: The First 5000 Days by artist Beeple sold for $69 million and several Bored Apes and Cryptopunks, two iconic NFT collections, also went over the digital counter for several millions.
Consequently, the digital art market has become booming business that a lot of players in the art market have since jumped on. The total revenue of the NFT market clocked in at $232 million in 2020. In 2021, it was $16 billion and in 2022 it was as high as $24.7 billion. In 2023, the NFT market seems to have cooled a bit, but the fact is, digital art is here to stay. However, the question that arises is whether digital art is treated legally in a different way from physical art?
Is digital art real art?
Art is commonly defined as a form of human expression that has aesthetic or conceptual value and is often intended to convey emotions, ideas or a particular message. Digital art includes works created using digital technologies, such as computers, software, digital images and interactive elements.
Like traditional art forms, such as painting, sculpture and photography, digital art can encompass various styles, techniques and concepts. It can range from digital paintings and drawings to interactive installations, 3D models, animations, digital collages and more.
Digital art has unique possibilities and advantages that are not always possible in traditional art forms. It allows artists to experiment with new technologies, interact with digital media sources and create interactive and immersive experiences. It also offers new opportunities for dissemination and access to artworks, as digital art can be easily shared and distributed online.
Of course, there may be different views on what is or is not considered art, and some people may not appreciate or recognise digital art as traditional art forms. However, art is often subject to interpretation and evolves with time and changes in technology and society. Therefore, it is important to be open to new forms of artistic expression, such as digital art, and recognise them as valuable contributions to the art world.
And what does the law say?
That digital art can indeed be considered art from an artistic perspective is clear. However, whether digital art is also legally considered art is not so unambiguous. Nevertheless, the answer to this question is legally highly relevant, as it will have implications in terms of intellectual property law, taxation and even anti-money laundering legislation.
In terms of copyright, legal protection is provided for original works, expressed in a concrete form and resulting from a creative activity. Indeed, copyright can protect any creation of the human mind expressed in a literary or artistic language. This includes graphic, pictorial, cinematographic, photographic, musical, sculptural, digital or other forms of expression. Importantly, however, the work must be sufficiently original to be protected. Obviously, digital art can also meet these conditions.
But the question arises in particular about the copyright protection of digital art under the form of a “non fungible token” (NFT ). An NFT stands for Non-Fungible Token. It is a digital code that is unique, irreplaceable, and non-exchangeable. NFTs are based on blockchain technology and use smart contracts to ensure the authenticity, ownership and transactions of the digital asset.
When the creator of the artwork is also the creator of the NFT, there is no copyright issue. In this case, there is a clear similarity between the artwork and the NFT and there is copyright protection for the owner of the NFT.
It is of course different if the creator of the artwork, is not the creator of the NFT. In principle, an NFT is not a reproduction of an artwork, but only a digital encoding of it. The making of the NFT itself, does not infringe the right of communication to the public or the reproduction right. But an image of the artwork will usually be attached to the NFT itself, and this does require the artist’s consent. In any case, it appears that owning an NFT does not necessarily imply ownership of the physical artwork associated with the NFT. This is only the case if it is contractually so provided. But it is possible for the owner of a physical work of art to grant a right to third parties on the basis of which an NFT of the work of art can be created and exploited. However, this then does not mean that the holder of the NFT also owns rights to the artwork itself.
NFTs of artworks belonging to the public domain ( that is 70 years after the artist’s death ) are also possible. This does not require permission from the owner of the artwork. But whether these NFTs then have any value is doubtful. After all, they are only the digital encoding of an image of the artwork, to which, of course, no right with the original artwork is attached.
And there is also some discussion about digital artworks on the tax front, especially in terms of VAT. Current EU VAT legislation (Directive 2001/112/EC[1]) allows EU member states to apply a reduced rate to the importation of works of art and the supply of works of art by their creator under certain conditions. Quite a few countries have introduced such a reduced rate. But recently it was stated by the Belgian Minister of Finance in a reply to a parliamentary question that NFTs “are not considered works of art”, so sales should be subject to 21% VAT and not the reduced rate of 6%. Whether this is a correct interpretation remains to be seen.
And problems also arise with regard to anti-money laundering legislation. The European Anti-Money Laundering Directive (EU) 2015/849 requires dealers in works of art to identify customers and report suspicious transactions. However, this directive only applies when we are dealing with trade in works of art. Again, it is therefore crucial to know whether an NFT can be considered an art object or not. The answer to this question is important to know whether NFT auction houses, for example, are covered by this legislation or not.
Quid?
It is striking to note how much the legal community struggles to legally grasp NFTs. There appears to be ambiguity or uncertainty in various areas of law on how to deal with NFTs. Again, all that can be asked of the legislature is to draw out a legal framework asap.
Would you like to know more?
The rise of Web3 and the metaverse is causing a lot of headaches for the legal community. New concepts such as digital assets, virtual currency and tokenisation pose significant challenges to lawyers worldwide. This is also the case for Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs).
What are Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs)?
DAO stands for Decentralised Autonomous Organisation. This is a collective, blockchain-driven organisation whose members share a common goal. DAOs are virtual organisations where, based on collective decision-making, either resources are managed collectively or common goals are pursued by DAO members. A DAO is an organisation that operates on the basis of smart contracts on a decentralised blockchain platform, such as Ethereum.
In a DAO, decision-making and operational processes are automated through codes, so no central authority or intermediary is needed to manage the organisation. Decisions are made by consensus where members of the DAO have voting rights, which they can exercise through tokens. This means that every member has a voice in the organisation’s decision-making process. The rules and governance structure of a DAO are entirely determined by codes and agreements set out in the blockchain protocol.
A key feature of DAOs is that they are open and transparent. Data and transactions within a DAO are stored on the blockchain, meaning they are publicly available for verification and audit. This promotes trust and reduces reliance on intermediaries.
Economic importance of DAOs
In a January 2023 report, the World Economic Forum stated that the total value of assets encrypted in DAOs on blockchain would increase by a factor of 40 by 2021, from $380 million to $16 billion. The economic importance of DAOs should therefore not be underestimated. DAOs have therefore become an important new mechanism for managing and allocating capital or other valuable digital assets.
This is not so surprising. DAOs have several economic benefits and can have a significant impact on different aspects of the economy. Important economic benefits of DAOs include decentralisation of power, independence from intermediaries, transparency and borderless participation:
– DAOs offer the opportunity to decentralise power and spread decision-making across a wider group of participants. This can lead to more inclusive and democratic decision-making processes, where individuals can participate directly in the governance of a project or organisation. This allows participants to feel more involved and have a greater influence on the economic activities of the DAO.
– DAOs use smart contracts and blockchain technology, allowing direct peer-to-peer interactions without the involvement of traditional intermediaries. This can reduce or even eliminate the need for intermediaries, such as financial institutions or platforms. The result is lower transaction costs and a more efficient economic system.
– DAOs use transparent and immutable blockchain technology, enabling a higher level of trust and transparency. Users can track and verify activities and decisions within a DAO. This can help build trust between participants, which is beneficial for economic interactions and cooperation.
– DAOs have the potential to enable global participation without geographical limitations. People from all over the world can participate in a DAO and contribute to its activities. This opens up new opportunities for cooperation, innovation and economic growth.
And what about the legal status of DAOs?
As with all other new technological evolutions, DAOs also raise important legal issues. Since DAOs are decentralised and blockchain-based, they present a new challenge to traditional legal regulation. The lack of a central authority or responsible entity makes it difficult to categorise DAOs within existing legal structures. Regulations applicable to traditional companies and organisations are often not appropriate for DAOs.
The lack of legal status of DAOs raises numerous questions, such as whether DAOs can enter into contracts and develop profitable activities. Another important question is whether the lack of legal personality of DAOs gives rise to personal liability of members. The same applies to the tax status of DAOs.
But here too, the legal community seems to be slowly but surely adapting to the new concept of DAOs. The Coalition of Automated Legal Applications, a global blockchain think tank, has already developed regulatory frameworks for legal recognition of DAOs. And meanwhile, several governments have also taken the step towards legal recognition of DAOs. Malta, for instance, already granted legal personality to DAOs in 2018. And the US states of Wyoming, Tennessee and Vermont have decided to include DAOs in existing corporate structures. Also, the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the US government agency that oversees securities markets in the United States, has decided that tokens issued for investment purposes should be classified as securities.
In other words, work in progress.
More information?
Contact us via infotax@bloom-law.be
#metaverse #DAOs #blockchain
Would you like to know more?
The basic principles of international law
It is a widely recognised fact that states possess “sovereignty“. Sovereignty implies that states possess a plenitude of power within their territory. By this is meant that sovereignty in the territory includes constitutional, legislative, administrative and judicial powers. This jurisdiction extends territorially to the entire territory and also to all persons within the territory of the State concerned.
Territory refers to the territory within the country’s borders. In principle, land borders are defined by treaties, which define the imaginary lines on the surface of the earth that separate the territory of one State from the territory of another State.
But land borders are not limited to the ground and subsoil. The sea and airspace are also part of sovereign land borders. The Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944, stipulates that each State has full and exclusive sovereignty over the air space over its territory. And the Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 stipulates that the sovereignty of a coastal State extends over a contiguous 12 nautical mile strip, defined as the territorial sea, and also provides that this sovereignty also extends over the airspace above the territorial sea and over its bed and subsoil.
And international agreements on sovereignty were also made for space. Among other things, the Space Treaty of 19 December 1966 provides for rules to which States are subject when exploring and using outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies.
And what about sovereignty in the virtual world?
Now that the technological revolution has also given theworld a virtual dimension, the question naturally arises as to who controls and regulates this virtual world and whether states can also assert their sovereignty here. This questionis not purely academic.
One of the most important aspects of having sovereignpower, for example, is the power to introduce taxes. Some tax practitioners are now openly questioning whether transactions that take place in the metaverse can be taxed, now that no state has jurisdiction over the virtual world. Indeed, to determine whether a state has tax jurisdiction over a transaction, tax domicile has to be determined, and that is not so easy in the metaverse. For example, how are you going to determine the tax residence of a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation ( DAO ), which is an organisation that has no real owner, is run by its members and is managed by computer software running on blockchain technology.
Virtual sovereignty therefore needs serious thought. Indeed, in today’s technological world, a huge amount of data is collected daily by the tech companies that citizens and businesses interact with. This data is stored on these companies’ cloud servers, which are often located abroad. Actually, this way, people are going to largely relinquish control over their own data, and the question is whether this is wise. It is also strategically important, as technological dependence on foreign companies makes the home economy quite vulnerable.
Consequently, more and more voices are calling for agreements on digital sovereignty as well. In an ideal scenario, this would be regulated in a global international treaty, just as for land, sea, airspace and space, but this does not seem to be on the cards yet.
And what about Europe?
The fact that there is not yet a global international treaty to regulate sovereignty in the virtual world does not mean that initiatives are not being taken. For example, in July2020, the European Parliament proposed a paper entitled “Digital Sovereignty for Europe”. This paper proposes a strategy to make Europe digitally independent. This mainly involves initiatives around boosting innovation, privacy and data protection, cybersecurity and competition. In this area, Europe has since recently taken a number of legislative initiatives.
The Digital Markets Regulation, for instance, came intoforce on 1 November 2022. This regulation targets the “gatekeepers” of the digital world. These are large online platforms that have a decisive market position in the digital world. The Digital Markets Regulation aims to ensure that these platforms behave fairly online. For instance, thesecompanies are prohibited from placing their own servicesand products on the platform higher or treating them more favourably than similar products or services from third parties. They also cannot prohibit consumers from contacting companies outside the platform.
On 16 November 2022, the Digital Services Regulation came into force. This regulation aims to ensure better online protection and more legal certainty for businesses and consumers to make digital commerce easier. These include obligations to inform consumers, transparency in online advertising and the ban on targeted ads for children.
Finally, from 1 January 2023, the European DAC7 Directive provides for an automatic and mandatory exchange of intelligence regarding information reported by digital platform operators. This concerns intelligence on sellers’ revenues from their commercial activities such as property rentals and the sale of goods through digital platforms.
Towards a global international treaty for the metaverse?
Europe may take initiatives to create more digital sovereignty, but this has been and remains quite limited to date. As in the past for maritime and aviation law, it will take some time before the international community can reach a global consensus to also regulate the rules of the game in the virtual world. But that this is necessary is certain.
#metaverse #digitalsovereignty #taxes
@MichelMaus
Intrested to know more?
Contact us via infotax@bloom-law.be
Would you like to know more?
The metaverse, new (criminal) opportunities
Financial magazine Forbes carried the story in March 2023 that the metaverse platform Roblox was involved in criminal proceedings in federal court in San Francisco after suspicious transactions were identified on the Roblox platforms. According to the indictment, more than 300 Roblox users allegedly laundered money by using in-game currency to purchase fake goods. This allowed them to forward money to each other which amounted to money laundering. The case ended with an out-of-court settlement, without Roblox admitting guilt. The Roblox case is a great example of how criminals are trying to use the metaverse to launder criminal money.
And that the metaverse is attractive for criminal activity is not surprising. The ability to conduct business anonymously via avatars, crypto-currencies and NFTs in virtual economies that are little regulated make the metaverse an ideal playground for criminals, particularly for developing money laundering schemes. It is clear that the rise of the metaverse and web3.0 can facilitate money laundering.
European anti-money laundering obligations
In the European Union, financial institutions and various other professions such as lawyers, notaries, accountants, art dealers etc have to comply with numerous anti-money laundering obligations. First and foremost, these include client identification. This includes collecting identification data and verifying this information. Next, they are also subject to a reporting obligation. When they identify suspicious transactions, which they reasonably suspect may be related to money laundering or terrorist financing, they must report this to the authorities. And finally, they must also provide internal control measures within their own organisation. This includes identifying, assessing and managing risks, training employees, establishing guidelines and procedures, and conducting internal audits. The purpose of these obligations is to help the financial sector and other relevant professions detect and prevent money laundering, impeding terrorist financing.
Anti-money laundering obligations in the metaverse
In principle, financial institutions and professionals subject to money laundering obligations should also respect these obligations if they operate in the metaverse. Only, a number of issues do arise in the metaverse that do not arise in the physical world. How should a law or accountancy firm operating in Roblox or Decentraland comply with identification obligations when confronted with an avatar asking for advice? And if they have identified the physical person behind the avatar, how can they have assurance that it will always be the same physical person acting with the avatar? And how can they avoid avatars acting as stooges?
And what about DAOs that are ubiquitous in the metaverse? DAO officially stands for Decentralised Autonomous Organisation. This is an organisation that operates completely autonomously, has no board and is run in a decentralised and democratic manner by anyone who is part of the organisation or community. Here the question arises how to comply with the identification requirement? In the case of DAOs, who is the ultimate beneficiary? It is clear that the creation of these structures will create new money laundering problems.
The metaverse will create new legal problems regarding money laundering. This is another area where the financial and legal world will have to adapt. This will have to involve adapting money laundering legislation but also using new technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to monitor virtual transactions and verify virtual identities. It is time to take steps here.
#fraud #metaverse #taxes #DAO
More information?
Contact us infotax@bloom-law.be
@MichelMaus
Would you like to know more?
The metaverse, playground for criminals?
The new world of the metaverse, working with crypto-currencies and NFTs, is naturally also attracting the attention of the criminal world. As with the start of the internet, this will undoubtedly lead to the emergence of new forms of crime, and the question will be whether our legal and police system is sufficiently equipped to deal with it. How metaverse crime will further evolve is still unclear, but the first indications of this evolution are already noticeable. For example, Europol’s 2022 report “Policing in the metaverse” has already shown that the metaverse platform Roblox is the 8th most imitated brand in phishing attempts worldwide. This is worrying, especially as 67% of Roblox users are children under 16, but is also indicative of criminal interest in the metaverse.
From “know your customer policy” (KYC) to “know your avatar policy” (KYA)
Anyone taking a closer look at the metaverse will be able to spot a number of criminal pain points fairly quickly. First is the issue of identity fraud. In the metaverse, the use of avatars is ubiquitous. And with the advancement of technology, avatars are also becoming more and more photorealistic. This therefore makes it easier and more convincing for criminals to use fake digital identities to commit fraud, whether by using deepfake software or not.
To prevent this, one should of course try to find out who owns an avatar, or in other words who owns the virtual identity. This is important because when a crime is committed, it is crucial to identify the physical persons who committed the crime. In addition to a “know your customer” policy, companies should actually develop a “know your avatar” policy as well, to prevent fraud. And avatar identification should actually also be a separate part of anti-money laundering legislation.
Another criminal pain point in the metaverse are cryptocurrencies and “non fungible tokens” NFTs. Especially during the corona pandemic, the intrinsic value of digital assets has skyrocketed and this too has attracted criminal attention. Of course, digital assets are used in money laundering operations, but in addition, criminals are also trying to steal digital assets. For example, there have already been several cases of theft of “bored apes”, the highly successful series of NFTs. These thefts took place by hacking the Bored Ape Yacht Club’s Instagram account and the digital auction platform Opensea, among others.
And new forms of sexual crimes are also popping up in the metaverse. Back in 2007, the first case of an avatar being digitally raped on the platform Second Fife was reported, and in 2022, journalist Nina Jane Pattel described how her avatar was “assaulted within 60 seconds” on the platform Horizon. But it goes beyond this, of course. On platforms such as the “child-friendly” Roblox, sex clubs were created by certain users where people talk about sex and have their avatars have virtual sex, but which could just as easily be used by sex criminals to target minors.
Should criminal law be changed?
Obviously, there is a need to assess whether the current criminal law is adequately equipped to tackle crimes committed in the metaverse. This means examining whether the criminal law’s offences are defined in such a way that digital crimes are also covered by the criminal law. This will give rise to questions such as whether abusing an avatar can be equated with abusing the physical person behind the avatar. And the issue of locating the crime will also have to be revisited here. After all, if a crime is committed in the metaverse, where is that crime committed? Answering this question is obviously relevant to knowing which jurisdiction has jurisdiction to prosecute the crime. Food for thought…
Would you like to know more?
Brave new tech world
Technological progress is advancing by leaps and bounds. In recent years, we have seen fantastic innovative technologies emerge, which have drastically changed our daily lives and especially our professional lives. Currently, artificial intelligence is on the verge of a major breakthrough, thanks to the Chat GPT software, which has opened a lot of people’s eyes. And yes people are questioning the future of certain jobs as technology evolves further. Platforms like Chat GPT can indeed threaten copywriters, for example. But this also applies to other software such as the instant translation programme Deepl and to Synthesia’s avatar video software.
Recently, Sofie Hens, a female journalist from the Belgian newspaper De Standaard, had her own photo realistic avatar created on Synthesia, only to be asked whether her job as a video presenter would be at risk. She came to the conclusion that it is not, because there is still a big difference between the physical and the artificial version of the presenter.
Those who search the academic literature for it will no doubt fall upon the study on the future of labour in society by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne, both affiliated with the University of Oxford. In their 2013 study, Frey and Osborne argue that 47% of current jobs are at risk in the next 20 years due to robotisation and digitisation. Other studies are slightly less pessimistic. In March 2018, the OECD presented a report stating that “only” 14% of jobs in OECD countries are at risk of being fully automated in the near future. However, that same report also stated that the performance of 32% of jobs will undergo significant changes through the use of technology in the work process.
Of course, technology will also create a lot of new jobs, so only the future will tell whether the technological revolution has created more or fewer jobs. Given the current labour market tightness, this is not the case for the time being.
The technological disruption on the labour market
Although research findings on the impact of the technological revolution on our jobs still vary widely, no one will argue, however, that there will indeed be an impact on the labour market.
This means that the government must also guard against the labour market impact of technological big bang. After all, the current financing model of most OECD countries relies substantially on labour income.
If technology will eliminate jobs, this could have a significant impact on government funding and spending. But in addition, there may also be a significant difference in the tax burden of labour-intensive and labour-intensive firms.
If jobs are lost, the State obviously loses the tax and parafiscal revenues associated with these jobs. What’s more, job losses not only result in less revenue for social security, but also in increased expenditure, since the State has to provide at least temporarily for people who have lost their jobs a replacement income in the form of unemployment benefits. Job loss due to technological evolution, therefore, may put pressure on our welfare model.
However, intellectual honesty also commands some nuance, at least as far as tax income loss is concerned. First, new jobs will be created alongside job losses. This is already the case with new jobs such as privacy manager and cybersecurity analysts, among others. However, these are rather specialised profiles. In addition, companies will often replace jobs with technology only for cost reasons. If working with technology is cheaper than working with employees, this will lead to more company profits and these company profits will then, of course, also be subject to corporate tax.
But if this step is taken, we must also take into account the differences in tax burdens between companies. In labour-intensive sectors where human labour is still crucial, the wage cost will help determine the company’s overall tax burden. This tax burden will be noticeably higher in labour-intensive sectors than in labour-poor sectors where technology does the work. This could also lead to a disruption in the economy.
Taxing avatars?
Should we now make avatars and robots pay taxes? Not immediately no, but with the inevitable digitalisation of the economy, we also need to think more and more about the tax system of the future. In time, we will have to abandon the idea that earned income is the central pillar on which taxation and parafiscality should be supported. If jobs are to give way to technology, the government will have to shift the fiscal focus from labour income to the gains created by human or technological labour. In a way, we should actually go back to ancient Rome where the Romans taxed slaves but not their labour. Today, we need to start making sure that modern slaves – after all, robot is the Czech word for slave – also make their contribution to financing the welfare state. After the internet of things, we are inevitably going to have to move to a taxation of things as well.
#avatars #metaverse #tax#jobs
More information?
Contact us infotax@bloom-law.be
Would you like to know more?
[start block]
Op een persconferentie van 8 februari 2022 stelde Margrethe Vestager, de Europese Commissaris voor Mededinging immers het volgende: “ European Union authorities need to better understand the futuristic digital world known as the ‘metaverse’ before they can decide how to regulate it.”, of met andere woorden, we hebben eigenlijk nog totaal geen besef wat er zich nu exact allemaal aan het afspelen is. Nu is het natuurlijk niet nieuw dat de politieke wereld weinig vooruitziend is en pas nadat er in een bepaald domein problemen zijn ontstaan, met regelgeving voor de dag komt, maar toch… Wie ook maar een beetje de moeite neemt om uit te zoeken wat de metaverse de komende jaren met zich zal meebrengen, beseft dat men de vinger aan de pols moet houden en kort op de regelgevende bal zal moeten spelen.
En dat zal niet evident zijn. De virtuele wereld van de metaverse functioneert immers op een totaal andere manier dan wat wij in het echte leven gewoon zijn. Denk alleen nog maar aan simpele en voor de hand liggende zaken zoals een dagindeling. In de metaverse is er geen ochtend, (na)middag, avond of nacht. Het is een universum dat “never sleeps”. Het is er in principe altijd dag of nacht of iets daartussen. Wie zal het zeggen? In de metaverse is er ook geen locatie. Alles speelt zich af “in the cloud”, wat dat ook moge zijn. Neem bijvoorbeeld Horizon Workrooms van het bedrijf Meta ( het vroegere Facebook ). Dit is een virtual reality (VR) toepassing om vanop afstand met elkaar te kunnen vergaderen, doorgaans in een bedrijfscontext. Deze VR-toepassing is eigenlijk nog het best te omschrijven als een virtuele 3D vergaderruimte waar men aanwezig is via een avatar die met een VR-bril wordt aangestuurd. Stel dat u vanuit Gent deelneemt aan een virtuele Horizon-meeting samen met collega’s, klanten of leveranciers die respectievelijk live in Texas, Belgrado, Ontario en Peking zitten. Waar moet deze Horizon-meeting dan worden gelokaliseerd? Stel dat het er tijdens deze meeting heftig aan toe gaat en dat u echt verbaal met de dood werd bedreigd door euh, de avatar van één van uw klanten of leveranciers? Dat is een misdrijf, althans volgens het Belgisch recht, maar is het Belgisch recht hier wel van toepassing? En op welke plaats is dat misdrijf dan gepleegd? Begrijpt u stilaan welke onmogelijke juridische discussies zich hier kunnen stellen?
Een van de belangrijkste problemen op dat vlak is dat de klassieke rechtssystemen vertrekken van een geografische en democratische benadering van het recht en van “citizenship”. Het zijn de democratisch verkozen parlementen van Staten die de wetgeving creëren die in deze specifieke Staat van toepassing zal zijn en door de burgers van deze Staat moeten worden gerespecteerd. De metaverse werkt anders en vertrekt van een non geografisch uitgangspunt en steunt op gemeenschappen zonder rekening te houden met nationaliteit of burgerschap. In de virtuele wereld zijn er geen landsgrenzen en bepalen metaverse platformen grotendeels hun eigen spelregels. De grote platformen die actief zijn in de metaverse zoals Decentraland, The Sandbox, Roblox, Stageverse, Spatial, OpenSea, Horizon, Mesh etc. hebben allemaal hun eigen “rules of conduct” of “terms and conditions” die op basis van vrijwilligheid geaccepteerd worden door de leden van een bepaalde virtuele gemeenschap of de gebruikers van de platformen. De kans bestaat uiteraard dat deze spelregels in conflict komen met de rechtsregels van een of andere Staat, maar de vraag zal zich dan aandienen of deze rechtsregels wel kunnen worden toegepast. De meeste servicevoorwaarden van de metaverse platformen bevatten immers clausules die het toepasselijk recht gaan bepalen en dat kan nogal uiteenlopend zijn. Decentraland bijvoorbeeld verwijst naar het recht van Panama, Roblox naar het recht van Calofornië, The Sandbox naar het recht van Hong Kong, Opensea naar het recht van New York, Meta naar het recht van de woonplaats van de consument etc. Of deze clausules al dan niet op zich rechtsgeldig zijn is ook reeds een ganse juridische kluif.
Een tweede fundamenteel probleem dat zich stelt is dat klassieke rechtssystemen de persoonlijke identiteit centraal stellen in het rechtsverkeer. In de metaverse vertrekt men van een digitale identiteit. In de klassieke fysieke wereld worden overeenkomsten afgesloten tussen personen en is een fysieke menselijke interactie vereist zoals het zetten van een handtekening. In de metaverse wordt anders geredeneerd en is het belang van de persoonlijke identiteit ondergeschikt. Mensen kunnen in de metaverse perfect als anonieme avatars optreden, en dit wordt aanvaard vanuit de overweging dat de blockchain-technologie waarop de metaverse draait alle mogelijke transacties digitaal gaat betonneren, zodat die altijd en overal kunnen worden gereconstrueerd en uiteindelijk toch aan een fysieke persoon kunnen worden toegewezen. Ook aan deze virtuele realiteit zijn onze klassieke rechtssystemen niet aangepast.
Naast deze fundamentele rechtsvragen wordt ondertussen in tal van rechtsdomeinen duidelijk welke problemen zich zullen aandienen en een oplossing zullen vereisen. Een eerste domein waar problemen verwacht kunnen worden is het aansprakelijkheidsrecht waar nieuwe fenomenen van aansprakelijkheid zullen opduiken. Zo bijvoorbeeld heeft het Amerikaanse advocatenkantoor Morgan & Morgan zich reeds geprofileerd als “metaverse injury lawyers”. Volgens hun website adviseren zij cliënten, die gewond zijn geraakt bij het gebruiken van een VR-headset, bij het claimen van schade van de fabrikanten van deze toestellen. Maar daarnaast is het evident dat we ons ook mogen verwachten aan tal van rechtszaken over problemen van aansprakelijkheid bij schendingen van privacy, bij hacking, en bij falende cyberbeveiliging. En ook bij inbreuken op intellectuele eigendomsrechten in de metaverse zullen procedures in aansprakelijkheid volgen, hetgeen trouwens reeds het geval is. De afgelopen werden verschillende spraakmakende rechtszaken over NFT’s opgestart.
Zo heeft het Franse luxemerk Hermès de digitale kunstenaar Mason Rothschild aangeklaagd voor het namaken van de Birkin-handtassen, zij het dat Rothschild geen echte handtassen heeft nagemaakt, maar wel NFT’s van de bekende handtassen onder de naam “MetaBirkins”. Volgens Rothschild maakt hij alleen maar digitale kunst en doet hij net hetzelfde als Andy Warhol die schilderijen maakte van Campbell soepblikken.
Ook regisseur Quentin Tarantino heeft reeds een rechtszaak aan zijn broek omdat hij had aangekondigd NFT’s te maken van fragmenten uit zijn cultfilm Pulp Fiction uit 1994. Dit was niet naar de zin van het filmbedrijf Miramax die de rechten op de film bezit en onmiddellijk een rechtszaak heeft aangespannen. Tarantino stelde in een mededeling reeds dat er in het contract met Miramax uit 1994 geen sprake is van een verbod op het maken van NFT’s…
Het veilinghuis Sotheby’s is ook reeds betrokken in een procedure rond de verkoop van het digitale kunstwerk Quantum van kunstenaar Kevin McCoy uit 2014, door sommigen beschouwd als de allereerste NFT. Dit kunstwerk werd verkocht door Sotheby’s voor 1,47 miljoen dollar tijdens een “Natively Digital”-veiling. Het Canadees bedrijf Free Holdings beweert echter dat niet Kevin McCoy maar wel zijzelf de rechten op het kunstwerk bezitten. Zij stellen dat Kevin McCoy de rechten op zijn NFT niet zou vernieuwd hebben, waardoor zij de rechtmatige eigenaar zijn van het kunstwerk.
En tot slot is ook nog de rechtszaak tussen Timothy McKimmy en het NFT veilingplatform OpenSea nog vermeldenswaard. Timothy McKimmy heeft een claim van 1 miljoen dollar ingesteld tegen OpenSea voor het verlies van zijn Bored Ape NFT. Hij stelt dat hij het slachtoffer is geworden van een hack op zijn NFT-portefeuille en klaagt dat OpenSea zijn platform te weinig heeft beveiligd tegen een cyberaanval.
Al deze zaken zijn eigenlijk maar een voorproefje van wat ons de komende jaren nog allemaal te wachten staat. Maar ondertussen staat ook de metaverse-wereld niet stil. Om de potentiële aansprakelijkheid voor claims van gebruikers te beperken, hebben heel wat metaverse-bedrijven ondertussen in hun bindende gebruiksvoorwaarden clausules opgenomen die hun aansprakelijkheid in geval van problemen zo veel als mogelijk beperken.
Niet alleen het aansprakelijkheidsrecht zal beïnvloed worden door de evoluties in de metaverse, ook in andere rechtsgebieden zal dit het geval zijn. Ook op de werkvloer bijvoorbeeld zal de metaverse implicaties hebben. We hebben hier reeds verwezen naar het VR-applicatie van Horizon Workrooms waar werknemers van bedrijven met hun eigen avatar aan virtuele 3D meetings kunnen deelnemen, en deze enkele metaverse toepassing doet reeds heel wat vragen rijzen:
– Kan een werkgever een werknemer verplichten om een bepaald type van avatar te gebruiken en die de fysieke kenmerken, het geslacht of de seksuele identiteit van een persoon zo realistisch mogelijk weergeeft of andersom een avatar verplichten die deze identiteit of kenmerken van een persoon net verborgen houdt?
– Wat als de keuze voor een avatar discriminerend of racistisch is?
– Wat met langdurig gebruik van een VR-bril en welzijn op het werk?
– Is een werknemer aan het werken wanneer zijn of haar avatar online is?
– Wat men grensoverschrijdend gedrag op de metaverse-werkvloer?
– En wat bij ontslag, is de avatar eigendom van de werkgever of niet en mag de werknemer zijn avatar behouden en meenemen naar een volgende job?
Ook op het vlak van financieel recht en fiscaliteit rijzen er heel wat issues in de metaverse. De metaverse draait uiteraard op cryptocurrency, hetgeen uiteraard de vraag stelt naar de regulering van deze alternatieve financiële markt. Daarnaast is er ook de opkomst van NFT’s, waarbij afbeeldingen, video’s, teksten, of objecten zoals kunstwerken, auto’s, huizen, kledij etc gedigitaliseerd worden in een NFT. De vraag zal zich stellen wat NFT’s nu juridisch inhouden. Moet een NFT worden beschouwd als een bewijs van eigendom, of eerder als een effect? Dit onderscheid zal doorslaggevend zijn voor de regelgeving die onder andere zal moeten toezien hoe de consumenten kunnen worden beschermd.
Op fiscaal vlak stellen zich natuurlijk ook allerlei vragen. Een van de belangrijkste fiscale vragen die opduikt in de metaverse is de vraag waar personen of bedrijven die inkomsten uit de metaverse genereren deze inkomsten hebben verkregen. Het fiscaal recht kent geen concepten zoals een virtuele wereld, dus zullen er oplossingen gevonden moeten worden om te bepalen waar belasting dient betaald te worden als bijvoorbeeld een bedrijf in pakweg Decentraland een webshop opent.
Personen- en familierecht
De virtuele wereld binnen Metaverse zal ook vragen doen rijzen die relevant zijn voor het personen- en familierecht. Zullen mensen bijvoorbeeld binnen de Metaverse huwen en uiteraard ook scheiden? Op 4 februari 2022 organiseerde een koppel uit Phoenix een huwelijksceremonie in Decentraland, ondersteund door Ethereum blockchain-technologie. Het koppel wilde het bewijs van hun huwelijksverbintenis vastleggen in blockchain. De huwelijksakte kwam in de vorm van een niet-fungibele token, en de huwelijkse voorwaarden werden opgenomen in blockchain. De vraag zal zich stellen of dergelijke overeenkomsten een wettelijk karakter kunnen hebben.
Privacy
De Metaverse zal ook voor tal van nieuwe problemen doen rijzen op het vlak van privacy en gegevensbescherming. Wat wordt er verzameld? Wie bezit of controleert de gegevens? Het delen van gegevens zal de hoeksteen vormen van een naadloze, interoperabele omgeving waarin gebruikers en hun digitale persona’s en activa bruikbaar en verhandelbaar zullen zijn in de verschillende domeinen van de Metaverse. Hoe zal het verzamelen, delen en gebruiken van dergelijke gegevens worden geregeld? Welke wetten zullen van toepassing zijn op het verzamelen van gegevens in de Metaverse? Komt er één overkoepelend “privacybeleid” voor de metaverse in het kader van een gebruikers- en handelaarsovereenkomst, of zijn er verschillende beleidsregels afhankelijk van het domein van de Metaverse waarin men zich bevindt? Kunnen sommige ontwikkelaars een meer “privacygerichte” ervaring creëren of zullen de persoonlijke gegevens van avatars noodzakelijkerwijs in elk rijk vrij circuleren? Hoe zal worden omgegaan met de privacy van kinderen en zullen er “afgeschermde” ruimtes zijn die alleen voor volwassenen toegankelijk zijn en waar verdere authenticatie vereist is om er binnen te komen? Zullen de concepten waarover we vandaag spreken – “persoonlijke informatie” of “persoonlijk identificeerbare informatie” – van toepassing zijn in een wereld waarin de reikwijdte van de beschikbare informatie exponentieel toeneemt naarmate activiteiten in de metaverse worden getraceerd?
Publiekrecht
De Metaverse kan ook publiekrechtelijke vragen doen rijzen. De Metaverse is op zich eigenlijk ook een verzameling van virtuele werelden die al of niet met elkaar geconnecteerd zijn. Het gaat hier dan bijvoorbeeld om virtuele werelden zoals Decentraland, Stageverse, Spatial, Roblox etc. Elke Mateverse biotoop functioneert momenteel volgens zijn eigen regels. De vraag die zich dus stelt is er of geen “grondwet” voor de Metaverse moet komen met een aantal ethische en grondregels voor zowel de platformen die in de Metaverse opereren als voor de gebruikers van de Metaverse. Eigenlijk is dat dan een soort van publiekrecht voor de Metaverse.
Sportrecht
De gaming-industrie is een van de belangrijkste katalysatoren van de Metaverse. Esports, zijnde het competitief gamen, is op dat vlak ook meer en meer een booming business aan het worden, die ondertussen met de reële sportwereld kan wedijveren. Maar ook daar liggen heel wat juridische problemen op tafel. Allicht een van de belangrijkste vragen is de vraag of esport kan worden gelijk gesteld met sport. Indien dit het geval is, dan is de volledige sportregelgeving ook van toepassing op esport. Maar dit is echter een open vraag. In ons land is het beleid op dat vlak vrij schizofreen. Zo stelde de minister van financiën onlangs in een antwoord op een parlementaire vraag dat esporters fiscaal gezien kunnen worden gelijk gesteld met sporters. Arbeidsbemiddeling Vlaanderen stelt dan weer dat het statuut van “sportmakelaar” uit het Vlaams Decreet Arbeidsbemiddeling niet van toepassing is esport, omdat esport volgens Sport Vlaanderen niet met sport kan worden gelijk gesteld.
Strafrecht
Tal van misdrijven die in de echte wereld kunnen worden begaan, kunnen ook in het Metaversum worden begaan. Er zijn al gevallen bekend van diefstal van virtuele voorwerpen die kunnen worden verhandeld voor virtueel of echt geld en van seksueel betasten van een andere avatar door een avatar, wat echte emotionele schade heeft toegebracht aan de persoon die de betastte avatar speelde. Wat zou het resultaat zijn als een avatar een andere zou verkrachten en een gebruiker als gevolg daarvan aan een posttraumatisch stresssyndroom zou lijden? Wat als het een recidivist was en de Metaverse onderneming dat wist? Zulke vragen zullen moeten worden beantwoord in de Metaverse. En ook hier stelt zich de vraag waar de misdrijven worden gepleegd en welke jurisdictie bevoegd is om de misdrijven te vervolgen.
Contractenrecht
De Metaverse zal per definitie een virtuele omgeving zijn waar rechtspersonen in zullen bewegen en met elkaar interacties zullen aangaan. Dit stelt uiteraard de vraag naar de juridische waarde van de verbintenissen die in de virtuele wereld worden afgesloten. IN het bijzonder zal zich hier de vraag stellen naar “slimme contracten” die gebaseerd zijn op blockchain-technologie. Slimme contracten gebruiken blockchain technologie om de voorwaarden van een overeenkomst te implementeren, zoals de uitvoering van betalingsvoorwaarden of een retourbeleid. Slimme contracten zullen dus per definitief een geautomatiseerde oplossing zijn voor het kopen en verkopen van producten en diensten in de Metaverse. Dit vereist uiteraard een regelgevend kader over het gebruik van blockchain.
Maar naast de problematiek van de basistechnologie voor digitaal contracteren, zijn er natuurlijk nog een aantal andere pijnpunten. Wat bijvoorbeel d met de geldigheidsvoorwaarden voor het sluiten van een overeenkomst. Wat als goederen of diensten worden gekocht of verkocht door middel van een avatar. De avatar is dan eigenlijk een soort scherm die de identiteit van de persoon achter de avatar gaat afschermen.
Geschillenbeslechting in de Metaverse
Het is evident dat de ontwikkeling en het gebruik van de Metaverse gepaard zal gaan met juridische conflicten en de vraag zal zich stellen waar en hoe die geschillen moeten worden beslecht. Geschillen in de virtuele wereld zullen in principe worden opgelost in de rechtbanken van de werkelijkheid, maar de vraag is welke jurisdictie bevoegd is in een conflict waar bedrijven bij betrokken zijn die over de ganse wereld zijn verspreid. Maar wie zegt dat er ook geen virtuele rechtbanken in de Metaverse worden opgericht als onderdeel van een nieuwe Meta-jurisdictie? En een andere vraag die zich stelt is de vraag of geschillen die zich afspelen in de Metaverse en waarbij partijen over de hele wereld betrokken zijn, kunnen worden opgelost via alternatieve geschillenbeslechting? Zou dat kunnen leiden tot een afzonderlijk “Metaverse” rechtssysteem?
[endblock]