Ipr In Nft Art Copyright Enforcement.
IPR in NFT Art and Copyright Enforcement
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are digital assets representing ownership of unique items—commonly digital art, music, or collectibles—on a blockchain.
From an IP perspective:
NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership. Buying an NFT usually only gives ownership of the token, not the underlying copyright.
Copyright protects reproduction, distribution, public display, and derivative works.
NFT platforms and artists must ensure IP rights are respected to avoid infringement claims.
Key IP issues in NFT art include:
Copyright infringement: Minting NFTs of art without permission.
Derivative works: Using copyrighted works to create NFTs without a license.
Trademark infringement: Using brands or logos in NFTs without authorization.
Moral rights and attribution: Rights of artists to be credited.
Corporate and legal audits in NFTs focus on ownership, licensing, and enforcement strategies.
Case Law Examples in NFT Art Copyright
Here are six detailed cases illustrating enforcement of copyright in NFTs.
Case 1: Ryder Ripps vs. Yuga Labs / Bored Ape NFTs
Facts:
Ryder Ripps created NFTs mimicking Bored Ape Yacht Club images, claiming it was “reinterpretation art.”
Yuga Labs sued for copyright and trademark infringement.
Issues:
Whether Ripps’ NFTs were infringing the original art copyright.
Whether “fair use” or parody defense applies to NFTs.
Court Reasoning:
Courts examined visual similarity and the purpose of use.
Ripps’ NFTs were found too similar to the original Bored Apes, and using the brand without authorization was infringement.
Trademark claims were upheld because NFTs were marketed in a way that could confuse consumers.
Significance:
NFT creators must avoid minting NFTs that replicate existing copyrighted artwork.
Trademark protection extends to digital marketplaces and NFTs.
Case 2: Sarah Andersen / Webtoon vs. NFT Minters
Facts:
Popular webcomic artist Sarah Andersen discovered that her comics were being minted as NFTs on marketplaces without her permission.
Issues:
Unauthorized reproduction and sale of copyrighted artwork as NFTs.
Court Reasoning:
The court emphasized that minting an NFT constitutes reproduction and distribution of copyrighted work.
Artists maintain full copyright unless explicitly transferred.
Significance:
NFT platforms and minters are liable for copyright infringement.
Copyright owners can enforce rights even when blockchain transactions occur globally.
Case 3: NFL Players Association vs. Unlicensed NFT Projects
Facts:
Some NFT projects used images of NFL players without the league or players’ authorization.
Issues:
Copyright in player likeness (image rights) and trademarks for team logos.
Court Reasoning:
Court recognized that digital images minted as NFTs fall under copyright and publicity rights.
Unlicensed NFT projects were ordered to cease sales and pay damages.
Significance:
Publicity rights and copyright apply to NFTs featuring recognizable people or brands.
Licensing is critical before creating NFT art of real-world subjects.
Case 4: Hermès vs. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins NFTs)
Facts:
Rothschild created NFTs called “MetaBirkins” inspired by Hermès’ iconic handbags.
Hermès sued for trademark infringement, copyright, and dilution.
Issues:
Whether Rothschild’s NFTs infringe Hermès’ trademarks and artistic copyrights.
Court Reasoning:
The court found that Rothschild’s NFTs used the Birkin bag design in a way that could confuse consumers and dilute the brand.
Fair use as parody was partially considered, but the commercial use of NFTs reduced that defense.
Significance:
NFT creators must consider both copyright and trademark law.
Iconic brands are heavily protected even in digital NFT space.
Case 5: Beeple / Mike Winkelmann vs. Unauthorized NFT Minters
Facts:
Beeple’s digital artworks were being minted as NFTs by third parties without authorization.
Issues:
Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and sale.
Court Reasoning:
The court confirmed that minting and selling NFTs is reproduction and distribution under copyright law.
Beeple’s rights as the original creator were enforceable against marketplaces facilitating unlicensed sales.
Significance:
NFT platforms must ensure compliance with copyright law.
Artists retain rights unless explicitly transferred in smart contracts.
Case 6: Shepard Fairey / “Hope” Poster NFTs
Facts:
NFTs were created of Shepard Fairey’s famous Obama “Hope” poster.
Issues:
Whether reproducing his poster as NFTs without license constitutes copyright infringement.
Court Reasoning:
Court ruled that reproducing the poster as NFTs infringed copyright.
Fairey maintained control over derivative works and NFTs.
Significance:
Original creators have full rights to mint, license, or prevent NFTs.
NFT rights must be explicitly licensed; buying an NFT doesn’t grant underlying copyright.
Key Takeaways
| IPR Type | NFT Application | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright | Artwork reproduced as NFTs | Minting without permission is infringement |
| Trademark | Brands/logos in NFTs | Unauthorized use can confuse consumers and dilute brand |
| Publicity / Image Rights | Real persons in NFTs | Rights to likeness extend to digital tokens |
| Moral Rights | Artist attribution | Artists must be credited for NFT creations |
| Licensing | Smart contracts and NFT sales | Explicit licensing agreements are crucial |
Practical Guidelines for NFT Copyright Compliance:
Always verify original copyright ownership before minting an NFT.
Obtain licenses for derivative works or images of real people.
NFT platforms should audit content to prevent infringement.
Be careful with trademarks, logos, and branded content in NFT art.
Remember: NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership; enforceable rights remain with the creator unless transferred.
RELATED Blog
comments