Ipr In Digital Art And Nft Creations.
1. Understanding IPR in Digital Art and NFTs
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protect creations of the mind—like art, music, literature, and software—from unauthorized use. In the context of digital art and NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), IPR mainly involves:
Copyright: Protects the original expression of ideas (digital images, animations, music). The copyright owner can reproduce, distribute, display, or create derivatives.
Trademark: Protects brand names, logos, or symbols associated with an NFT project.
Moral Rights: The right of an artist to be credited and to object to modifications of their work.
Patents (less common): Sometimes relevant for underlying technology of NFT platforms or unique digital tools.
NFTs and IP: Minting a digital art as an NFT does not automatically transfer copyright. Ownership of an NFT means ownership of a digital token linked to the art, not the underlying copyright—unless explicitly stated in the smart contract.
2. Key IPR Issues in NFTs
Copyright Infringement: Selling or minting NFTs of art without permission.
Derivative Works: Creating NFTs based on someone else’s art.
Authenticity & Fraud: NFTs being sold as “originals” without authorization.
Moral Rights Violations: Modifying digital art NFTs without crediting the original artist.
3. Landmark Case Laws in Digital Art / NFT IPR
Here are 5+ important cases, analyzed in detail:
Case 1: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (2021-2023)
Facts:
Photographer Lynn Goldsmith took a photo of Prince.
Andy Warhol created a series of artworks based on that photo.
Warhol Foundation claimed fair use; Goldsmith sued for copyright infringement.
Decision:
The U.S. Second Circuit (2023) held that Warhol’s series was transformative but only partially. The court limited Warhol’s use, emphasizing the commercial nature of derivative works.
Key takeaway: Even famous artists can infringe copyright if derivative works aren’t clearly transformative.
Relevance to NFTs: Minting an NFT based on someone else’s photo or digital art without permission could be infringement, even if it “remixes” the original.
Case 2: Ryder Ripps vs. Yuga Labs (2022-2023)
Facts:
Yuga Labs created the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFTs.
Artist Ryder Ripps sold NFTs mimicking BAYC with “copycat” traits.
Outcome:
Yuga Labs claimed trademark and copyright infringement.
The court focused on trademark infringement and consumer confusion, showing that copying NFT art could trigger IP liability.
Relevance: Highlights trademark and copyright protections in NFTs, even for digital-only assets.
Case 3: Miramax v. Tarantino (2022)
Facts:
Quentin Tarantino wanted to sell NFTs of scripts from his film Pulp Fiction.
Miramax claimed copyright ownership over the scripts.
Outcome:
Tarantino could not sell NFTs without Miramax’s authorization.
Court emphasized NFTs as a form of distribution and the necessity of underlying copyright permission.
Relevance: Minting NFTs of scripts, music, or art without rights constitutes infringement. Ownership of digital tokens does not bypass copyright.
Case 4: Beeple Digital Art NFTs (Christie’s Auction, 2021)
Facts:
Beeple’s NFT Everydays: The First 5000 Days sold at Christie’s for $69 million.
This was not a lawsuit case, but it set a precedent in digital art valuation and copyright awareness.
Beeple retained copyright and licensed usage under strict terms.
Relevance: Illustrates how NFTs separate token ownership from copyright ownership, and legal contracts define usage rights.
Case 5: eBay vs. Tiffany & Co. (2010, with NFT relevance today)
Facts:
eBay allowed counterfeit Tiffany jewelry sales. Tiffany sued.
Court held that platforms can be liable if they knowingly facilitate IP infringement.
Relevance to NFTs:
NFT marketplaces (OpenSea, Rarible) could be liable if they allow unauthorized NFT minting of copyrighted works.
Encourages marketplaces to implement copyright verification systems.
Case 6: Shepard Fairey v. Associated Press (2009)
Facts:
Artist Shepard Fairey used an AP photo of Obama for his famous “Hope” poster.
AP sued for copyright infringement.
Outcome:
Case settled, but court highlighted fair use and transformative defense limits.
Fairey could not freely claim fair use for commercial exploitation.
NFT relevance:
Transformative works as NFTs still need careful legal review, especially if monetized.
4. Practical Legal Lessons for NFT Creators
Always secure copyright before minting NFTs.
Use licenses: Explicitly state what buyers can do with the NFT.
Respect trademarks: Avoid using brands or logos without permission.
Document originality: Keep drafts, timestamps, and source files for defense.
Be cautious with derivatives: Even “remixes” can lead to lawsuits.
✅ Summary
NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership.
Digital art is protected under traditional copyright and trademark law.
Courts are applying existing copyright and IP laws to NFTs.
Key takeaways from cases: Fair use is limited, derivative works need permission, and NFT marketplaces may be liable for infringement.
RELATED Blog
comments