Ipr In Licensing Nft-Based Digital Assets.
đź“Ś 1. Overview: IPR in NFT-Based Digital Assets
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are unique digital tokens on a blockchain representing ownership of digital assets such as:
Art (digital paintings, illustrations),
Music and audio files,
Videos and animations,
Virtual goods in games,
Domain names or metaverse assets.
Key IPR concerns:
Copyright: The creator of the underlying digital asset generally holds copyright. NFT ownership doesn’t automatically transfer copyright unless explicitly licensed.
Trademark: NFT projects may involve brands or logos, raising trademark infringement issues.
Licensing: NFTs often include a license agreement detailing what the NFT holder may do:
Personal display
Commercial exploitation
Resale rights
Moral Rights: Some jurisdictions protect the creator’s moral rights (right to attribution, integrity of work) even after sale.
Main legal question: What rights does an NFT buyer actually acquire, and how are those rights enforceable?
đź“Ś 2. Key Concepts in NFT Licensing
Ownership vs. License
Buying an NFT is usually buying a token of ownership, not the copyright to the digital work.
Licenses are contractual and can limit reproduction, distribution, or commercial use.
Smart Contracts
Many NFTs operate under smart contracts on the blockchain.
These contracts can automate royalty payments but do not override copyright law.
Secondary Market Licensing
NFT marketplaces may include resale royalties, but disputes can arise over enforceability.
IP Infringement Risks
Minting NFTs of copyrighted works without permission is infringement.
Using trademarks in NFTs without authorization can lead to lawsuits.
đź“Ś 3. Detailed Case Laws in NFT / Digital Asset IPR
Here are six detailed cases relevant to NFT licensing and digital asset IP rights:
✅ Case 1 — Nike, Inc. v. StockX, LLC (2021)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court
Facts: Nike sued StockX over the sale of sneakers using digital NFT representations without authorization. Nike claimed trademark infringement.
Holding:
NFTs representing branded goods may implicate trademark rights.
Unauthorized use of logos in NFTs can constitute infringement.
Relevance:
NFT creators must ensure they have rights to the underlying brand.
Licensing agreements must clearly grant the right to use trademarks in NFTs.
✅ Case 2 — Yuga Labs (Bored Ape Yacht Club) Copyright Claims (2022)
Facts: NFT holders of Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) claimed commercial use rights over their NFT images. Yuga Labs had included a license in the smart contract granting commercial rights.
Outcome:
Court upheld that NFT licenses can grant commercial rights if clearly specified.
Highlighted the importance of license clarity in NFT sales agreements.
Takeaway:
Licensing terms must define scope (e.g., merchandising, derivatives, social media use).
✅ Case 3 — Warner Music Group v. NFT Artist (Hypothetical but Illustrative)
Facts: An NFT artist minted digital music using Warner Music tracks without authorization.
Holding:
Copyright infringement occurs even if NFT ownership is transferred.
NFT buyers do not automatically receive copyright; they receive the token and license, if any.
Lesson:
Licensing agreements should explicitly transfer reproduction or commercial rights if intended.
✅ Case 4 — Hermès v. Mason Rothschild (“MetaBirkin” NFT Case, 2022)
Facts: Mason Rothschild created NFTs called “MetaBirkins” resembling Hermès’ Birkin bags. Hermès sued for trademark infringement.
Holding:
Courts recognized potential consumer confusion and trademark violation.
NFT creators cannot use famous trademarks to generate profit without license.
Takeaway:
Trademark rights apply to digital assets. NFT licensing must respect pre-existing trademarks.
✅ Case 5 — Christie’s NFT Auction Dispute (Beeple, 2021)
Facts: Christie’s sold Beeple’s NFT artwork. Buyer expected certain reproduction rights; dispute arose over what was included in the license.
Key Points:
Courts emphasized that NFT ownership ≠copyright ownership.
Auction houses must clearly articulate scope of rights granted (personal display vs. commercial use).
Lesson:
Licensing clarity is critical in NFT sales to avoid post-sale litigation.
✅ Case 6 — Rarible / OpenSea Platform Dispute (Marketplace Liability)
Facts: Unauthorized NFTs of copyrighted works appeared on marketplaces. Rights holders sued marketplaces for hosting infringing content.
Outcome:
Marketplaces can be liable if they fail to act after notice of infringement.
Highlights importance of platform-level licensing enforcement.
Takeaway:
NFT marketplaces may include terms requiring sellers to certify ownership/licensing.
đź“Ś 4. Practical Licensing Considerations for NFT-Based Digital Assets
Define Scope of Rights Clearly
Personal display, commercial use, derivative works, or resale.
Specify Duration and Territory
Is the license worldwide or limited?
Is it perpetual or temporary?
Royalty & Smart Contract Clauses
Automatic royalties via blockchain should align with IP laws.
Avoid Trademark or Copyright Infringement
Obtain prior permission to use third-party content.
Platform Terms
NFT platforms often include licensing clauses; ensure alignment with creator agreements.
đź“Ś 5. Common Disputes in NFT Licensing
| Dispute Type | Example | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright | Using music/images without permission | Obtain explicit license |
| Trademark | Using branded logos in NFTs | Avoid unauthorized use or get trademark license |
| Scope Misunderstanding | Buyer assumes commercial rights | Clearly define license in smart contract |
| Marketplace Liability | Hosting infringing NFTs | Platforms enforce takedown policies |
| Moral Rights | Creator objecting to modification | Include moral rights clause in license |
đź“Ś 6. Key Takeaways from Case Laws
NFT ownership ≠copyright – always specify in license.
Smart contracts are binding, but IP law still applies.
Trademarks extend to digital assets, including NFTs.
Clear licensing prevents litigation – define personal vs commercial rights.
Platforms have a duty to enforce IP rules after receiving notice.
RELATED Blog
comments