SHAPING THE FUTURE OF COPYRIGHT IN UZBEKISTAN: COMPARATIVE LESSONS FROM THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
Uzbekistan, copyright reform, digital media, DMCA, comparative law, collective management, artificial intelligence.Abstract
Across the past two decades, Uzbekistan has made meaningful progress toward a modern copyright regime. The 2006 Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the country’s entry into the Berne Convention and the WIPO treaties, and a sustained reform program in recent years together point in a clear direction. Even so, the task is unfinished. Digital life has outpaced the tools available to enforce rights, and a great many Uzbek authors remain unsure how to safeguard what they create online. This paper is offered in a spirit of patient learning. Writing as an Uzbek lawyer studying intellectual property at Penn State Law, I have examined closely how the United States manages digital copyright—what it does well, where it falls short, and what it has to teach. The paper sets the two systems carefully alongside one another and poses a straightforward question: which features of the American experience could help Uzbekistan advance? It puts forward five practical, good-faith reforms—a notice-and-takedown procedure, a repeat-infringer rule for online platforms, an accreditation scheme for collective rights organizations under Article 56 of our Copyright Law, a shared public system for protecting works online, and an early, considered framework for artificial intelligence. Not one of these reforms asks us to set aside our legal traditions. Each simply supplies the working tools our authors and creators require.
References
1.BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018).
2.Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
3.Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016).
4.New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 27, 2023).
5.Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025).
6.Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012).
7.Statutes, Treaties, and Regulatory Materials
8.Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9, 1886 (as revised at Paris, July 24, 1971).
9.Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, arts. 1031–1065.
10.Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Administrative Responsibility, art. 177(2).
11.Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–1401.
12.Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, art. 149.
13.Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. PP-3047 (May 4, 2017).
14.Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
15.Directive 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, 2019 O.J. (L 130) 92.
16.Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Copyright and Related Rights, No. ZRU-42 (July 20, 2006, as amended 2021).
17.U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability (Jan. 2025).
18.WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2026-02-25 (2)
- 2026-06-09 (1)
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
