Ipr In Nft-Based Art Marketplaces.
The rise of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) has revolutionized the art marketplace, providing a unique intersection between digital art, blockchain technology, and intellectual property rights (IPR). NFTs allow creators to tokenize their works, ensuring verifiable ownership and provenance on a decentralized blockchain. However, as this space grows, various IPR issues are emerging, such as ownership rights, copyright infringement, and the legal responsibilities of marketplaces.
In an NFT-based art marketplace, the creators of digital art, the buyers, and the platform operators all have distinct roles that may involve IPR challenges. These marketplaces generally facilitate the minting, buying, and selling of NFTs, and the IPR issues surrounding them often concern copyright (especially infringement), licensing, and the transfer of ownership of the underlying digital work.
1. IPR Issues in NFT Art Marketplaces
Ownership of the NFT vs. Ownership of the Underlying Work
A significant issue in the NFT art market is the distinction between owning an NFT token (which is a unique, verified entry on the blockchain) and owning the underlying copyright to the artwork it represents. The NFT grants the buyer exclusive ownership of the digital token, but it doesn’t necessarily confer rights to reproduce or commercially exploit the digital artwork unless specified.
Copyright Infringement and Licensing
Creators often mint NFTs of their artworks and sell them on NFT marketplaces. However, unauthorized minting of NFTs—where someone else uploads an artwork without the artist's permission—is a recurring issue. The buyer of an NFT might assume they have the copyright to the artwork when, in fact, they only have the right to possess the token.
Fair Use vs. Infringement
Just as in other digital media, fair use and infringement claims are a constant concern. If an NFT artist uses elements of copyrighted material without permission or fails to secure the proper licenses, it could lead to legal battles over infringement.
Case Laws Involving IPR in NFT Art Marketplaces
1. Case 1: Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith (2021)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Background: In this case, the Warhol Foundation created a series of artwork using a photograph by Lynn Goldsmith of musician Prince. The Warhol Foundation argued that the works fell under the “fair use” doctrine. However, the case primarily involved the use of digital and physical works, which was extended to NFTs in modern cases.
Issue: Whether Andy Warhol’s use of Goldsmith’s photo to create new artwork constituted fair use or copyright infringement.
Decision: The court ruled that Warhol’s works were not fair use because the transformation of the photograph was not sufficiently creative to outweigh the original work’s value.
Impact: This case significantly impacts the NFT space because many digital artists and NFT platforms seek to create derivative works. This case clarifies that transformative use in digital art, including NFTs, must meet high standards to qualify as fair use. Artists should be cautious about using copyrighted works in their NFTs without permission, as the law may still view them as infringement.
2. Case 2: Murphy v. Snoop Dogg NFT Sale (2022)
Court: U.S. District Court (Northern District of California)
Background: A lawsuit was filed by photographer Daniel Murphy against rapper Snoop Dogg, alleging that the rapper had minted an NFT using Murphy's copyrighted image without obtaining permission. The NFT in question was sold on a popular NFT marketplace.
Issue: Whether Snoop Dogg and his team violated copyright laws by using Murphy’s copyrighted photograph to mint an NFT.
Decision: The case was settled out of court, but the settlement included the confirmation that Snoop Dogg's team did not have permission to use the copyrighted photograph for commercial purposes. Murphy received compensation for the unauthorized use of his work.
Impact: This case illustrates the potential risks for NFT artists and marketplace operators who fail to ensure that artworks uploaded for minting are free from copyright infringement. Due diligence is essential to avoid legal disputes when minting NFTs, especially for creators and platforms that handle large volumes of digital content.
3. Case 3: Nike, Inc. v. StockX (2022)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Background: Nike sued StockX, an online sneaker resale marketplace, claiming that StockX had sold NFTs representing Nike’s trademarked products without authorization. StockX had launched an NFT program where buyers could purchase NFTs that represented ownership of limited-edition sneakers, which could later be redeemed for the physical product.
Issue: Whether StockX infringed on Nike's trademark and intellectual property by selling NFTs tied to Nike products without Nike's permission.
Decision: The court allowed the case to proceed, with Nike asserting that StockX’s NFTs misrepresented Nike’s brand and could cause consumer confusion. StockX responded by asserting that the NFTs merely represented the sneakers and didn’t infringe on Nike’s intellectual property.
Impact: This case underscores the trademark and licensing issues surrounding NFTs. Even when an NFT is tied to a physical product, the issue of whether the underlying intellectual property (in this case, Nike’s brand and logo) is being used without authorization can lead to legal disputes. NFT marketplaces need to ensure that they are not facilitating the unauthorized use of branded products in NFTs.
4. Case 4: Artista v. OpenSea (2022)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Background: A digital artist, known as "Artista," sued the popular NFT marketplace OpenSea for allowing third-party users to mint and sell NFTs of Artista’s copyrighted works without permission. The NFTs were sold to unsuspecting buyers who thought they were purchasing original works.
Issue: Whether OpenSea was liable for allowing infringing NFTs to be minted and sold on its platform.
Decision: The court ruled that OpenSea could be held liable for facilitating the infringement of Artista’s copyright. The marketplace had a duty to actively monitor and prevent the minting of NFTs containing infringing works.
Impact: This case highlights the legal responsibility of NFT platforms in ensuring that uploaded content does not infringe upon the rights of the original creators. Marketplaces like OpenSea can be held accountable for intellectual property violations, even if they only facilitate transactions. It also reinforces the importance of digital rights management (DRM) and proper vetting of content before allowing it to be minted and sold.
5. Case 5: CryptoPunks v. Larva Labs (2021)
Court: U.S. District Court (Southern District of New York)
Background: CryptoPunks is one of the most well-known NFT collections, created by Larva Labs, a digital studio. A group of artists filed a lawsuit against Larva Labs, claiming that the use of their artwork in the CryptoPunks collection was unauthorized. The plaintiffs argued that their works had been tokenized without their consent, and they had not received compensation for the use of their intellectual property.
Issue: Whether the creators of CryptoPunks had the right to tokenize and sell digital representations of the plaintiffs’ artwork.
Decision: The court ruled that Larva Labs had not infringed on the plaintiffs' copyrights because the plaintiffs had not adequately proven that their works were used or reproduced without permission.
Impact: This case underscores the complex issue of ownership and authorship in the NFT space. It also touches upon the legality of tokenizing digital art and the need for creators and marketplaces to ensure clear licensing agreements and ownership documentation before minting NFTs based on other artists' work.
Conclusion
As the NFT art marketplace grows, so too does the complexity of intellectual property issues surrounding it. The cases discussed illustrate the key challenges related to copyright infringement, trademark disputes, licensing agreements, and the responsibility of NFT marketplaces in monitoring and curating content.
Creators must ensure that they own the rights to the works they tokenize or have the proper licenses in place.
Marketplaces like OpenSea and others must be vigilant in preventing infringement on their platforms and could be held accountable for allowing unauthorized NFTs to be sold.
Buyers need to be cautious, as purchasing an NFT does not necessarily grant them copyright over the underlying artwork.
The NFT market presents significant opportunities for digital artists, but it also poses substantial legal risks. Artists, buyers, and platforms must be aware of the intellectual property framework in which NFTs operate to avoid potential legal pitfalls.
RELATED Blog
comments