Nft Ip Enforcement Online
1. Background: NFT and IP Issues
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are digital assets on a blockchain representing ownership of unique items, often digital art, music, or videos.
Key IP issues with NFTs include:
Copyright Infringement – minting or selling an NFT of someone else’s work without permission.
Trademark Infringement – using a brand/logo in an NFT without authorization.
Right of Publicity – using a person’s image or persona in an NFT without consent.
Licensing Confusion – buying an NFT does not automatically grant copyright or reproduction rights unless explicitly licensed.
Platform Liability – marketplaces like OpenSea or Rarible and whether they are liable for infringing NFTs.
2. Enforcement Challenges Online
Anonymity of Minters: Many NFT creators are pseudonymous, making enforcement difficult.
Cross-border Jurisdiction: Blockchain transactions are global, complicating which country’s law applies.
Smart Contract Issues: NFTs are governed by blockchain code; courts may struggle with enforcing remedies.
Rapid Dissemination: NFTs can be minted and sold worldwide instantly, making takedowns reactive rather than preventive.
3. Key Case Laws
Case 1: Ryder Ripps v. Yuga Labs (Bored Ape Yacht Club) – 2022–2023
Facts:
Artist Ryder Ripps minted NFTs resembling BAYC (Bored Ape Yacht Club) apes, claiming they were “critique” or parody.
Yuga Labs, the original NFT creators, claimed trademark infringement and dilution.
Court Action:
Yuga Labs filed lawsuits in U.S. courts seeking injunctions and damages.
The court examined whether Ripps’ NFTs were fair use (critique/parody) or infringing commercial products.
Outcome & Key Principle:
This highlighted that trademark rights extend to NFTs and that even digital collectibles are subject to traditional IP laws.
Fair use defenses are narrowly applied if the NFT has commercial intent.
Case 2: Ryder Ripps v. Ryder (Artist using NFT images without license) – OpenSea DMCA Takedown
Facts:
Multiple creators minted NFTs of artwork not owned by them.
OpenSea responded to DMCA takedown notices from original artists.
Court/Platform Response:
OpenSea removed the infringing NFTs but noted platform immunity under Section 230 (U.S.) as long as they act promptly.
Key Principle:
NFT marketplaces are intermediary platforms and may be shielded from liability but must act when notified.
Case 3: Miramax v. Tarantino (Pulp Fiction NFTs) – 2021–2022
Facts:
Quentin Tarantino attempted to sell NFTs of 7 unseen "Pulp Fiction" film scenes.
Miramax claimed copyright infringement, arguing Tarantino did not have rights to distribute the scripts or film content as NFTs.
Outcome:
Court agreed with Miramax; Tarantino could not sell NFTs without the copyright owner’s permission.
Key Principle:
Ownership of underlying IP is critical. Minting an NFT does not grant IP rights; selling without permission is infringement.
Case 4: Nike v. StockX (CryptoKicks NFT Dispute) – 2021–2022
Facts:
Nike sued StockX for minting NFTs tied to Nike shoes (CryptoKicks), alleging trademark and design infringement.
StockX argued NFTs were derivative and did not harm Nike’s brand.
Outcome:
Settlement reached; StockX agreed to remove infringing NFTs.
Key Principle:
Trademark rights extend into virtual goods/NFTs. Unauthorized NFT creation using a brand is actionable.
Case 5: Hermès v. Mason Rothschild (Metabirkins) – 2022
Facts:
Rothschild minted NFT versions of Hermès’ Birkin bags called “MetaBirkins.”
Hermès filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement and dilution, claiming the NFTs damaged the luxury brand’s image.
Court/Outcome:
The case is ongoing, but preliminary injunctions were sought.
Courts are exploring whether digital reproductions of real-world luxury items constitute infringement.
Key Principle:
High-profile brands are enforcing IP rights aggressively against NFT adaptations, even if purely digital.
Case 6: Logan Paul v. FTX NFT Scams – 2022
Facts:
Logan Paul, a celebrity NFT creator, found unauthorized NFTs of his likeness being sold.
Legal claims focused on right of publicity and fraud.
Outcome:
NFTs were removed after complaints, some settlements reached.
Key Principle:
Celebrities and individuals have IP and personality rights in the NFT space; unauthorized use is actionable.
Case 7: NFT DMCA Takedown Trend (General Enforcement)
Facts:
Multiple artists worldwide have issued DMCA takedowns against OpenSea, Rarible, and LooksRare for infringing NFTs.
Outcome:
Platforms generally comply and remove infringing NFTs quickly.
Some cases are escalated to U.S. courts when significant commercial value is involved.
Key Principle:
Digital IP enforcement is platform-driven; the DMCA framework is a critical tool in U.S. law.
Similar processes are emerging in EU under the Digital Services Act.
4. Key Takeaways on NFT IP Enforcement
Ownership ≠ NFT Sale: Owning an NFT does not mean owning the copyright. Selling or distributing without consent is infringement.
Traditional IP Law Applies: Copyright, trademark, and publicity laws are applicable to NFTs.
Platform Responsibility: Marketplaces are intermediaries; they are generally shielded but must act on complaints.
Cross-border Issues: Enforcement can be complicated when NFT buyers, sellers, and platforms are in different countries.
Licensing is Critical: Clear license terms (e.g., what rights transfer with the NFT) are essential to avoid disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments