Nft Ownership Disputes
NFT Ownership Disputes: Overview
NFTs are unique digital assets recorded on a blockchain, representing ownership or proof of authenticity of digital art, collectibles, music, videos, or other digital content. However, with the rise of NFTs, disputes over ownership, copyright infringement, and fraud have also emerged.
Common Issues in NFT Ownership Disputes:
Copyright vs. NFT ownership: Buying an NFT does not always transfer copyright.
Fraudulent or unauthorized minting: NFTs created without the original creator’s consent.
Smart contract disputes: Errors or unfair terms in code governing the NFT.
Resale rights and royalties: Disputes over payments to original creators upon resale.
Marketplace liability: Responsibility of platforms hosting NFTs.
Key Legal Principles in NFT Disputes
Ownership of an NFT usually means control of the token on blockchain but not necessarily ownership of the underlying intellectual property.
Copyright law still governs the underlying content.
Smart contracts are enforceable but can be challenged for unfairness or errors.
Contract law applies to sale and transfer agreements.
Fraud and misrepresentation laws apply if NFTs are sold under false pretenses.
Landmark NFT Ownership Dispute Cases
1. Yuga Labs LLC v. Ryder Ripps et al. (2022)
Facts: Yuga Labs, creators of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFTs, sued artist Ryder Ripps for creating and selling NFTs allegedly infringing on BAYC trademarks and confusing consumers.
Legal Issue: Trademark infringement and unfair competition due to “copycat” NFTs.
Court Holding: The court ruled in favor of Yuga Labs, finding Ripps’ actions misleading and infringing on trademark rights.
Significance: This case clarifies that NFTs can implicate trademark laws, and creators have rights against imitators selling confusingly similar digital assets.
2. Stable Diffusion Litigation (2023)
Facts: Artists sued Stability AI, the creator of Stable Diffusion AI, for generating images using their copyrighted work, which were then minted as NFTs.
Legal Issue: Whether AI-generated NFTs infringing copyrighted works violate artists’ rights.
Status: Ongoing, but raises critical questions about copyright ownership in AI-created NFTs and downstream sales.
Significance: Highlights emerging challenges of AI-generated NFTs and copyright enforcement.
3. Lex DeVille v. Mintable Inc. (2022)
Facts: NFT creator Lex DeVille sued Mintable NFT marketplace for allowing unauthorized sale of his art NFTs, claiming breach of contract and copyright infringement.
Legal Issue: Platform liability for unauthorized NFT sales.
Court Holding: The case emphasized that marketplaces must have mechanisms to prevent and remove infringing NFTs.
Significance: Puts responsibility on NFT platforms to police listings and protect artists’ rights.
4. PleasrDAO v. Tamadrum (2022)
Facts: PleasrDAO, a collective that buys rare NFTs, contested the ownership rights of a digital artwork minted as an NFT by Tamadrum, who claimed the sale was unauthorized.
Legal Issue: Whether the NFT purchase transferred valid ownership rights of the digital art.
Court Holding: The court ruled that owning the NFT doesn’t necessarily mean owning the copyright, which remains with the original creator unless explicitly transferred.
Significance: Reinforces the distinction between NFT ownership and intellectual property rights.
5. Matter of Floppygoat (2023)
Facts: A user claimed ownership of a “Floppygoat” NFT but discovered the underlying image had been plagiarized from another artist.
Legal Issue: Ownership dispute arising from fraudulent or plagiarized NFT content.
Court Holding: The dispute is pending, but the case highlights the risk of buying NFTs with plagiarized content.
Significance: Raises issues about due diligence and fraud prevention in NFT transactions.
Summary and Legal Implications
Ownership of NFTs doesn’t automatically grant copyright or intellectual property rights.
Trademark and copyright laws apply to underlying digital content.
Marketplaces face increasing pressure to police listings for infringement.
Smart contract terms can be subject to legal scrutiny.
Due diligence is crucial for buyers to avoid fraudulent NFTs.
Courts are developing jurisprudence balancing blockchain technology with traditional IP law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments