Ipr In Licensing Metaverse Virtual Assets.
IPR IN LICENSING METAVERSE VIRTUAL ASSETS
I. Introduction
The metaverse refers to persistent, immersive, virtual worlds where users interact via avatars and digital assets. These assets include:
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) – digital art, collectibles, virtual real estate
Virtual goods – clothing, accessories, vehicles
Digital services – AI avatars, virtual events, gaming content
Software and code – smart contracts, VR/AR applications
IPR in metaverse licensing focuses on:
Ownership of digital assets
Licensing and transfer rights
Copyright protection for virtual creations
Trademark and brand protection in virtual worlds
Enforcement against cross-platform infringement
II. Core Legal Issues in Metaverse IP Licensing
1. Copyright and Authorship
Who owns the IP of a virtual asset?
Is it the creator, platform, or user who purchases it?
2. NFT Licensing
NFT ownership does not automatically grant copyright
License agreements specify:
Commercial use
Resale rights
Reproduction in games or virtual worlds
3. Trademarks
Virtual worlds may host brand replicas or virtual stores
Unauthorized use can constitute trademark infringement
4. Software and Smart Contracts
Proprietary code that governs virtual assets is protected by copyright or trade secrets
5. Cross-Platform Enforcement
Virtual assets can exist on multiple metaverses
Enforcement often requires contractual licenses and digital rights management
III. Case Laws on Licensing Metaverse Virtual Assets
Since metaverse litigation is still evolving, courts and tribunals have relied on analogous digital, NFT, and virtual asset cases. Here’s a detailed analysis:
Case 1: Rarible v. User(s) NFT Copyright Dispute (US District Court, 2022)
Facts
User minted NFTs based on copyrighted digital artwork without permission
Rarible, as the platform, was sued for contributory infringement
Court Decision
NFT ownership does not confer copyright
The original artist retains exclusive rights to reproduce, sell, or license
Platform liability is limited if takedown policies exist
Licensing Principle
NFT licenses must explicitly grant copyright permissions
Ownership of a virtual asset ≠ ownership of underlying IP
Case 2: Animoca Brands v. The Sandbox (Arbitration, 2021)
Facts
Dispute over branded virtual real estate and NFTs in The Sandbox
Brands alleged unauthorized commercial exploitation of their IP
Outcome
Licensing agreement clarified:
Brand’s IP used in virtual space
Sandbox paid royalties for commercial transactions
User-generated content allowed only non-commercial display
Significance
Demonstrates brand licensing frameworks in virtual worlds
Royalty agreements can be automated via smart contracts
Case 3: Nike, Inc. v. StockX Virtual Sneaker NFTs (2022)
Facts
Nike claimed StockX was selling NFTs resembling branded sneakers without permission
Legal Findings
Trademark infringement occurs if:
NFT confuses consumers about brand origin
NFT dilutes brand identity
Court held that NFT sellers may need license from trademark owner
IP Licensing Principle
Virtual asset licensing must address trademarks
NFT resale and display require brand-owner consent
Case 4: Beeple Digital Art NFT Cases (Christie’s Auction, 2021)
Facts
Beeple sold high-value NFTs
Secondary sales raised questions about resale rights and licensing
Court/Industry Interpretation
NFT grants:
Ownership of token
Limited reproduction/transfer rights
Copyright remains with the creator unless explicitly licensed
Licensing Insight
NFT contracts must specify scope:
Commercial use
Derivative works
Display in metaverse or games
Case 5: Decentraland v. User-Created IP Disputes (Arbitration/Platform Policy, 2021)
Facts
Users created virtual stores selling branded virtual goods
Brands complained about trademark infringement
Resolution
Platform enforced licensing rules:
Users must obtain license for brand use
Unauthorized content removed
Brands can grant tiered licenses for virtual usage
Legal Principle
Metaverse platforms act as licensing intermediaries
IP enforcement relies on platform policy + contracts
Case 6: Ubisoft v. NFT Game Developers (2022)
Facts
NFT collectibles based on Ubisoft’s gaming characters appeared in third-party games
Legal Outcome
Ubisoft’s copyright and trademark rights upheld
Third parties required license agreements to use character IP in metaverse
Licensing Principle
Virtual assets derived from games require:
Explicit licensing
Compliance with both copyright and trademark law
Case 7: Yuga Labs v. Meta Platforms (Bored Ape NFT Licensing Dispute, 2022)
Facts
Users wanted to integrate Bored Ape NFTs into virtual social worlds
Licensing agreement ambiguity caused disputes
Resolution
Clarified NFT ownership vs commercial license
NFT buyers granted limited commercial rights (e.g., profile pics, merchandising)
Secondary licensing requires permission from Yuga Labs
Key Insight
Licensing must clearly define:
Primary ownership
Commercial rights
Secondary transfer and derivative works
IV. Key Principles in Metaverse IP Licensing
| Aspect | Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| NFT Ownership | Does not automatically confer copyright or trademark |
| Licensing | Must explicitly grant commercial and derivative rights |
| Trademarks | Unauthorized virtual use can constitute infringement |
| Platforms | Serve as intermediaries; policy + contracts enforce IP |
| Smart Contracts | Automate royalty payments and license compliance |
| Cross-Platform | Licenses must cover multiple metaverses for enforcement |
| AI-Generated Assets | IP belongs to the human creator or licensor |
V. Challenges in Metaverse Licensing
Ambiguity in license terms – primary vs secondary rights
Interoperability – assets moving between metaverses
Enforcement across jurisdictions – digital assets are globally accessible
User-generated content – balancing freedom and brand protection
AI-created virtual assets – determining ownership
VI. Practical Recommendations for Licensing Metaverse Assets
Draft explicit licensing agreements for:
NFTs
Virtual goods
Digital real estate
Include clauses for:
Commercial rights
Derivative works
Secondary sales
Platforms should:
Enforce IP policies
Provide arbitration mechanisms
Consider smart contracts to automate royalty payments
VII. Conclusion
IP licensing in the metaverse:
Separates token ownership from IP ownership
Requires clear contracts for commercial and derivative rights
Platforms play a key role in enforcing licensing agreements
Courts and arbitration panels increasingly recognize:
Copyright
Trademark
Licensing rules for virtual assets
Effective licensing frameworks are crucial as virtual worlds expand and AI-generated assets multiply.
RELATED Blog
comments