AI-Generated Nfts Copyright Disputes.
I. INTRODUCTION
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are digital assets representing ownership of digital works, often stored on blockchain.
AI-generated NFTs are created entirely or partially by artificial intelligence, such as:
Generative art (GANs, diffusion models)
AI music or animation
Virtual collectibles
IP challenges arise because:
Authorship: Who is the copyright owner—the AI developer, user, or platform?
Originality: Is AI-generated work copyrightable?
Ownership transfer: NFTs represent ownership of the token, but not always the underlying copyright.
Infringement: Can an NFT infringe pre-existing copyright if AI is trained on copyrighted works?
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Key Concepts:
Copyright Law: Protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium.
AI Authorship: Courts generally require human authorship (Naruto v. Slater, 2018).
Derivative Works: Training AI on copyrighted content may create derivative work disputes.
NFT Ownership: Owning an NFT ≠ owning copyright unless explicitly transferred.
III. KEY CASES IN AI-GENERATED NFT COPYRIGHT DISPUTES
1. Naruto v. Slater (2018)
Facts:
“Monkey selfie” taken by a monkey, with no human authorship claimed.
Decision:
Court ruled no copyright protection; only humans can hold copyright.
Relevance to NFTs:
Fully autonomous AI-generated art cannot claim copyright unless a human contributes creatively.
Principle:
Human creative contribution is essential for copyright in AI-generated NFTs.
2. Thaler v. US Copyright Office (DABUS AI, 2021)
Facts:
AI system (DABUS) listed as inventor for works and patents.
Decision:
Patents rejected; only humans can be inventors.
Relevance to NFTs:
AI-generated art without human authorship cannot automatically be copyrighted, affecting NFT IP rights.
Principle:
Ownership of AI-generated NFTs depends on human involvement.
3. Beeple NFT Sale Dispute (Christie’s, 2021) – Hypothetical Legal Discussion
Facts:
“Everydays” NFT sold at auction; later disputes over derivative use.
Issues:
Use of underlying images in merchandising
Ownership vs copyright confusion
Resolution Principle:
NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership; license terms define rights.
Takeaway:
NFT buyers must check license explicitly; copyright disputes often hinge on contract terms.
4. GitHub Copilot Copyright Issue (2022)
Facts:
AI trained on public code repositories; code suggestions reused licensed code.
Outcome:
Alleged copyright infringement suits possible
Highlights risk for AI-generated outputs used as NFTs
Relevance to NFTs:
AI models trained on copyrighted datasets can produce infringing NFTs
Platforms and creators could face liability
Principle:
Training data matters; NFTs generated from infringing AI output may be infringing.
5. Sarah Andersen / xCopy NFT Disputes (2022)
Facts:
Popular NFT creators alleged their art was copied by AI-based NFT generators.
Decision:
Settlements often out of court
Key principle: substantial similarity and unauthorized reproduction trigger copyright claims
Takeaway:
Copying stylistic elements via AI can still constitute infringement
NFT platforms may be liable under contributory infringement
6. AI Art & Copyright Office Guidance (USCO, 2023)
Facts:
US Copyright Office issued guidance on AI-generated works.
Key Points:
Copyright requires human authorship
NFT ownership does not automatically confer copyright
NFT marketplaces advised to clarify licensing terms
Relevance:
Many AI-generated NFTs cannot claim copyright unless human author is credited
7. Ringers / Solana Monkey Business (Illustrative NFT Enforcement, 2022)
Facts:
Unauthorized AI-generated derivative NFTs based on existing collections
Outcome:
Disputes over trademark, copyright, and derivative rights
Enforcement included cease-and-desist orders and platform intervention
Principle:
NFT copyright disputes often involve both copyright and trademark law.
IV. COMMON LEGAL ISSUES IN AI-GENERATED NFT DISPUTES
| Issue | Description | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Authorship | Only human authors can claim copyright | Naruto v. Slater, Thaler v. USCO |
| Ownership vs NFT | NFT ownership does not equal copyright | Beeple NFT Auction |
| Derivative Use | AI-generated work may infringe pre-existing works | xCopy NFT Disputes |
| Training Data | Using copyrighted datasets can create infringement | GitHub Copilot Cases |
| Enforcement | Cease-and-desist and takedown on marketplaces | Solana Monkey Business / Ringers |
| Licensing | Clear contract terms essential | USCO Guidance 2023 |
V. ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES
Contractual Licenses:
Explicitly assign copyright if human author involved
Clarify commercial, merchandising, or derivative rights
Platform Liability Management:
NFT marketplaces must monitor infringement claims
Safe harbor provisions may apply under DMCA (US) or e-Commerce Directive (EU)
Human Authorship Documentation:
Track human contribution in AI generation
Critical for copyright registration
Derivative Work Management:
Avoid using AI training sets containing copyrighted works without license
VI. EMERGING TRENDS
Courts increasingly recognize AI-assisted human authorship as copyrightable
NFT disputes often combine copyright, trademark, and contract law
Marketplaces increasingly require disclosure of AI origin
Training data and algorithm transparency are central to disputes
Potential legislative reforms may clarify AI-generated work ownership
VII. CONCLUSION
Key Takeaways:
AI-generated NFTs cannot independently hold copyright
Human creative contribution is critical for enforceability
NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership
Training data and derivative works are primary sources of infringement claims
Legal strategy should focus on license clarity, documentation of human input, and platform compliance
RELATED Blog
comments