For more than twenty-five years, I have worked to build cultural bridges between Uzbekistan and the wider world. As a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, a translator of Uzbek literature, and the founder of Suhbat LLC, I have dedicated a significant portion of my life to introducing Uzbek voices to English-speaking audiences. In 2019, that work was formally recognized when I was awarded the Order of Doʻstlik by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev for my English translation of Abdullah Qodiriy’s Oʻtkan Kunlar. Friendship, trust, and mutual respect were the values that award symbolized.
Today, those values are being tested.
The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Uzbekistan has ruled in my favor, confirming that copyright and intellectual property theft did occur against me by Jahon Tilli University, a state institution. Uzbek courts have acknowledged liability. The unresolved issue—the one that truly matters—is compensation. That gap between recognition and remedy reveals a structural weakness in Uzbekistan’s intellectual property regime that threatens not only creators, but the country’s aspirations for a modern, rules-based economy.
How the Theft Happened
My translation of Oʻtkan Kunlar was lawfully donated to libraries and institutions for individual use, with explicit conditions prohibiting reproduction or distribution. Those conditions were ignored. As part of a government-mandated digitization program, the book was scanned without permission and distributed across the national university system. It subsequently appeared on institutional servers and social media platforms, granting free access to an estimated eight million students—long before lawful commercialization could take place.
The result was devastating. Over years, I repeatedly attempted to sell licensed copies of the book to ministries and universities—often at a profit of just one dollar per copy, comparable to international educational publishers operating in Uzbekistan. Each proposal failed, not because of lack of interest, but because the work had already been made freely available through unlawful means. One cannot sell what has already been stolen.
The Financial and Moral Cost
The financial harm is measurable. Conservative projections show that legitimate institutional sales could have reached thousands of copies annually, with significant growth potential in a country of 33 million people and 1.3 million university students. Instead, the domestic market was effectively destroyed. The moral cost is harder to quantify. When a creator’s work is taken without consent, it signals that effort, expertise, and good faith are disposable.
This is not an isolated case. Another American businessman—also a recipient of the Order of Doʻstlik—has found himself seeking damages in Uzbek courts after corrupt business practices eroded his investments. Friendship, it seems, does not shield one from loss when accountability stops at the individual level and institutions remain immune.
A Structural Problem, Not a Personal Dispute
Uzbek law currently allows claims only against individual officials, not the institutions that benefit from infringement. In practice, this means that even when courts confirm wrongdoing, damages are capped, diluted, or avoided altogether. Liability exists without deterrence. Enforcement becomes symbolic rather than corrective. As long as state institutions face no financial consequence, large-scale infringement will continue.
This is why my case matters beyond personal redress. It has the potential to become foundational case law in Uzbekistan—clarifying whether intellectual property rights are genuinely protected or merely acknowledged in theory. International observers are watching. American, UK, and EU businesses will interpret the outcome as an indicator of whether Uzbekistan offers a developed, trustworthy business environment or one where risk is absorbed by creators alone.
Reform as an Opportunity
Uzbekistan has made public commitments to reform, openness, and foreign investment. Protecting intellectual property is not a peripheral issue; it is central to a knowledge-based economy and a creative sector that can compete globally. Reform requires more than favorable rulings—it requires mechanisms for compensation, institutional accountability, and meaningful remedies.
My request is simple and reasonable: compensation proportionate to the harm, removal of unlawfully distributed files, and a legal framework that prevents recurrence. Such steps would send a powerful signal that Uzbekistan is serious about protecting creators and honoring its international commitments.
When intellectual property is stolen, trust erodes. When it is fairly compensated and protected, confidence grows. Uzbekistan now faces a choice—whether to allow this case to close quietly with minimal damages, or to let it stand as proof that reform is real, enforceable, and worthy of international respect.
by Mark Reese
