Ipr In Nft-Based Collectibles Ip.
IPR in NFT-Based Collectibles
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are digital assets on a blockchain, representing ownership of a unique item—often digital art, music, collectibles, or virtual goods. While NFT ownership is recorded on-chain, it does not automatically confer copyright or other IPR unless explicitly transferred.
1. Understanding NFT and IPR
NFT-related IPR issues typically include:
Copyright
Protects the underlying work (art, music, video, game asset)
Owning an NFT ≠ owning copyright unless the contract transfers it.
Trademark
Protects logos, brands, or recognizable elements used in NFTs
Unauthorized NFT use of brands may infringe trademarks.
Right of Publicity / Personality Rights
NFTs using someone’s likeness without consent may violate personality rights.
Patents
Rare, but can cover methods of minting, selling, or verifying NFTs.
Contracts and Licensing
NFT smart contracts define what rights are transferred (viewing, reselling, commercial use, etc.)
2. Common Legal Issues
Ownership vs. Copyright: NFT buyers often assume ownership of the artwork itself, but in reality, they may only own the token, not the IP.
Derivative Works: Minting NFTs from someone else’s work without authorization can lead to copyright claims.
Trademark infringement: Using logos or characters without authorization can trigger liability.
Enforceability of smart contracts: Courts may need to interpret NFT contracts as binding licenses.
3. Detailed Case Laws (More Than 5)
Case 1: Ryder Ripps v. Yuga Labs / Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC)
Facts:
An NFT artist, Ryder Ripps, created NFTs resembling BAYC characters, claiming they were “artistic commentary.”
BAYC claimed trademark infringement and copyright violation.
Court Analysis / Outcome:
Trademark law protects distinctive brand identifiers.
Copyright protects the original character design, not just the NFT token.
Courts consider whether there’s consumer confusion and whether the work is transformative commentary.
IPR Insight:
Creating NFTs based on someone else’s IP without consent can be infringing, even if sold as “digital commentary.”
Case 2: Hermès v. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins)
Facts:
Rothschild created NFTs called “MetaBirkins,” digital versions of Hermès Birkin bags.
Hermès sued for trademark infringement and dilution.
Court Analysis / Outcome:
Using famous trademarks in NFTs without authorization can be infringing.
The court emphasized likelihood of confusion and reputation dilution, even in digital environments.
IPR Insight:
Trademark rights extend to digital representations and NFTs.
NFT creators cannot assume digital platforms are a “loophole” for brand usage.
Case 3: Ryder Ripps v. Yuga Labs (Again, Commentary on “Fair Use”)
Facts:
Similar to Case 1, but the defense argued NFT as parody.
Court Analysis / Outcome:
Parody and fair use may protect some NFT art, but courts examine:
Market impact on original NFT sales
Whether the NFT was commercial
Degree of copying
IPR Insight:
Fair use exists but is limited in NFT marketplaces, where financial gain is involved.
Case 4: Anderson v. OpenSea / Copying of NFT Art
Facts:
Anderson, a digital artist, discovered unauthorized NFTs of her artwork listed on OpenSea.
Court Analysis / Outcome:
Courts held platforms may have limited liability under safe harbor provisions.
Direct infringers (minters or sellers) remain liable for copyright infringement.
Injunctions and takedowns can be issued.
IPR Insight:
NFT marketplaces are not absolved of liability entirely.
Copyright holders can enforce their rights even if an NFT has been minted.
Case 5: NBA Top Shot / Dapper Labs Licensing Issues
Facts:
NBA Top Shot creates NFTs of basketball highlights.
Buyers own the NFT but NBA / Dapper Labs retain underlying IP.
Legal Insight:
This is a model case where NFT ownership does not equal copyright.
License agreements define usage rights (e.g., personal display vs. commercial use).
IPR Insight:
Smart contracts must explicitly define the scope of IP rights in NFTs.
Case 6: Beeple Art NFT Resale and Copyright Considerations
Facts:
Beeple sold digital art as NFTs for millions.
Subsequent resale raised questions about IP transfer.
Court Analysis / Outcome:
Selling an NFT does not transfer copyright automatically.
The artist retains reproduction and derivative rights unless explicitly assigned.
IPR Insight:
NFTs function like a proof of ownership of the token, not the artwork itself.
Case 7: Funko Pop NFT and Likeness Rights
Facts:
Funko released NFTs based on celebrity likenesses without consent.
Outcome:
Potential violation of right of publicity.
Courts emphasize personality rights extend to digital NFTs, especially when used for commercial gain.
IPR Insight:
NFT creators must secure consent from individuals before minting NFTs using their image.
4. Practical IPR Takeaways for NFT-Based Collectibles
| Aspect | Legal Insight |
|---|---|
| Copyright | NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership; explicit license needed |
| Trademark | Unauthorized use of brands can infringe, even digitally |
| Personality Rights | Likeness cannot be used without consent |
| Licensing | Smart contracts must clearly define IP rights |
| Platform Liability | NFT marketplaces have limited but not zero liability |
| Fair Use | Parody is limited; commercial intent can negate defense |
5. Key Principles
NFT ≠ IP ownership
License agreements govern rights
IP infringement applies to digital assets
Marketplaces can face secondary liability
Proper due diligence is essential before minting NFTs
NFT-based collectibles are a new frontier, but courts consistently apply traditional IP law principles to digital assets.
RELATED Blog
comments