<![CDATA[The convergence of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has triggered a doctrinal crisis in copyright, contract, and evidence law across several major jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union, and selected Asian legal systems. By 2025, over 70% of top NFT sales feature hybrid human–AI creations, yet most remain in legal and economic “gray zones” across jurisdictions. This article examines the challenge of partial AI authorship through a comparative analysis of U.S., EU, and Asian legal frameworks, revealing enduring gaps in originality doctrine, inconsistencies in the treatment of blockchain-based evidence, and contested approaches to smart contract enforceability and royalty mechanisms. Particular attention is given to the technical processes through which AI systems source, transform, and recombine data from public and private domains, raising unresolved questions of infringement, attribution, and authorship when copyrighted works are used without authorization. Drawing on originality doctrine, transformative use standards, and fair use principles, the analysis argues that legal protection should be confined to AI-assisted outputs that reflect meaningful human creative judgment and demonstrable transformation, rather than automated reproduction. Situating these doctrinal tensions within broader patterns of market volatility, regulatory arbitrage, and unequal access to justice. It concludes that adaptive, pluralist governance is essential to achieving legally coherent and socially sustainable outcomes in the digital creative economy.]]>
