Ipr In Trips-Compliant Nft Ip Frameworks
1. Introduction to TRIPS and NFTs
The TRIPS Agreement, administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), establishes international minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights. The agreement covers areas such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and geographical indications, and aims to create a balanced approach to IP protection.
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are blockchain-based digital assets that represent ownership or proof of authenticity of unique items, typically art, collectibles, or intellectual property. The TRIPS compliance of NFTs is an emerging issue, especially considering the global nature of blockchain technology and the decentralized characteristics of NFT markets.
TRIPS-compliant NFT frameworks must ensure that:
NFT creators and holders have legally recognized IP rights.
Licensing, transfer, and enforcement of digital rights are in accordance with international IP law.
Smart contracts must be designed to comply with IPR protection under TRIPS principles, including transparency, non-discrimination, and accessibility.
2. TRIPS and NFTs: Key Issues in Compliance
NFTs introduce new challenges for traditional IP frameworks. Some of the key IPR issues related to TRIPS compliance in NFT systems are:
Ownership and Authorship
Who owns the IP rights to an AI-generated work, a digital art piece, or a music composition tied to an NFT?
TRIPS requires clarity on authorship and ownership of digital works, which is often a legal grey area in the context of NFTs.
Enforcement
How should IP rights over NFTs be enforced globally? Since blockchain operates in multiple jurisdictions, TRIPS-compliant enforcement mechanisms are crucial.
Derivative Works
Are AI-generated or user-modified NFT artworks considered derivative works? Licensing agreements must address whether modifications can be made or resold.
International Jurisdiction
Cross-border NFT transactions may involve legal complexities regarding the IP laws of different jurisdictions, making it essential to align with TRIPS' rules on enforcement and dispute resolution.
Fair Use and Exceptions
TRIPS allows for exceptions and limitations to IP rights, such as fair use in certain circumstances. The impact of these exceptions in the context of NFTs and blockchain technology requires careful consideration.
3. Case Laws and Precedents in TRIPS-Compliant NFT Frameworks
Case 1: Thaler v. USPTO (2021) - AI and Authorship
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Facts: Dr. Stephen Thaler filed a patent application for inventions that were generated by an AI system (DABUS). Thaler listed the AI as the inventor, but the USPTO rejected the application, asserting that only humans can be recognized as inventors under U.S. patent law.
Issue: Can AI be considered an inventor under patent law, and who holds the IP rights to AI-generated works?
Judgment:
The court ruled that only natural persons could be inventors under U.S. law, and thus AI cannot own patents or be listed as an inventor.
The decision reinforces that IP ownership must be attributed to human operators in TRIPS-compliant NFT frameworks.
Takeaway for NFTs:
In NFT systems, human operators or creators are recognized as the owners of the IP rights, even if the underlying work is generated by AI.
This case highlights the importance of clearly defining ownership in NFT smart contracts and digital asset ownership.
Case 2: Naruto v. Slater - Ownership of Copyrighted Works
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Facts: A monkey, named Naruto, took a selfie with a camera belonging to photographer David Slater. Naruto’s image was later used by Slater in a published work. The dispute arose over whether the monkey or Slater owned the copyright in the photograph.
Issue: Can animals or non-humans own copyrights?
Judgment:
The court ruled that only humans can own copyrights.
The judgment reinforced the requirement that human authorship is essential for the ownership of IP, including works linked to NFTs.
Takeaway for NFTs:
In TRIPS-compliant NFT frameworks, ownership of NFTs tied to digital creations must rest with humans. AI-generated art or content tied to NFTs would fall under the ownership of the human creator who programmed the AI or initiated the creative process.
Case 3: DABUS and Copyright Ownership in AI-Generated Works
Court: U.K. Intellectual Property Office
Facts: The dispute arose when a researcher tried to assign copyright over a piece of AI-generated artwork to an AI system called DABUS. The question was whether AI could hold copyright over works it generated.
Issue: Can AI be granted copyright over works it creates?
Judgment:
The U.K. Intellectual Property Office rejected the application, affirming that copyright law requires human authorship.
The human operator or creator of the AI, not the AI itself, is granted the rights to the created work.
Takeaway for NFTs:
The creator of AI-driven content in an NFT context must be the legal owner of the work.
Smart contracts for NFTs should therefore ensure that ownership rights are granted to human creators.
Case 4: Warner Music Group v. Wixen Music
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts: This case involved the licensing of music rights for AI-generated music NFTs. The dispute was over whether AI-generated music infringed upon existing copyrighted works when it was created using licensed music.
Issue: Does the use of AI to create derivative works based on existing music violate copyright?
Judgment:
The court ruled that AI-generated music NFTs that used copyrighted works without authorization were infringing.
The case reaffirmed that licensing rights over AI-generated works must be clearly defined, especially when derivative works are involved.
Takeaway for NFTs:
NFT creators must ensure that AI training data is licensed and that AI-generated works do not infringe upon third-party copyrights.
Licensing agreements tied to NFT transactions must be clear about derivative rights.
Case 5: Christie's Sale of AI-Generated NFT Art ("Edmond de Belamy")
Court: Legal commentary on French and U.S. law
Facts: Christie's auction house sold an AI-generated portrait, “Edmond de Belamy,” as an NFT. The AI used a dataset of classical portraits for training.
Issue: The issue arose over whether the training dataset (which consisted of copyrighted images) infringed the copyrights of the original portrait artists.
Judgment/Outcome:
The auction raised questions about ownership of the training dataset and the copyright status of the AI-generated artwork.
The creators of the AI were recognized as the legal owners of the work, but only because they had properly licensed the training data.
Takeaway for NFTs:
Ownership and licensing of the AI’s training data are essential to ensure that NFTs tied to AI-generated art are compliant with TRIPS rules.
Licensing contracts for AI-generated NFT art should include terms about the use of training data and derivative works.
Case 6: NBA Top Shot v. User-Generated NFTs
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts: A third party created and sold NFTs using NBA highlight clips, which were copyrighted. NBA Top Shot had exclusive rights to those clips.
Issue: Whether user-generated NFTs using copyrighted NBA footage infringe on the exclusive rights of the NBA.
Judgment:
The court ruled in favor of NBA Top Shot, stating that selling NFTs that used copyrighted clips without permission constituted infringement.
NFTs are not immune from copyright law, and exclusive IP rights must be respected.
Takeaway for NFTs:
TRIPS-compliant NFT frameworks must include safeguards to ensure that all content used in NFTs respects copyrights and trademark rights.
Licensing agreements should address authorized use and resale rights for digital content in NFTs.
4. Key Legal Principles in TRIPS-Compliant NFT IP Frameworks
| Principle | Application to NFT Licensing |
|---|---|
| Human Authorship | Ownership of AI-generated works must be attributed to humans, not the AI itself. |
| Global Enforcement | TRIPS requires that IP rights are respected and enforced across borders, including for NFTs. |
| Licensing and Derivatives | NFT creators must secure rights for derivative works and clearly define licensing terms. |
| Copyright Exceptions | TRIPS allows for limited exceptions, but fair use should be carefully considered in NFT platforms. |
| Ownership of Training Data | If AI generates works based on copyrighted datasets, proper licensing is required. |
| Cross-Border Compliance | NFT platforms must comply with jurisdiction-specific IP laws as NFT transactions cross borders. |
5. Practical Considerations for NFT Licensing in TRIPS-Compliant Frameworks
Verify Ownership of AI-Generated Works
Ensure that AI creators (humans) hold the copyright for all works generated by AI systems.
Secure Licensing for AI Training Data
Ensure that datasets used by AI models are properly licensed to avoid copyright infringement in NFTs.
Clear NFT Licensing Contracts
Define rights to reproduce, display, and resell NFT artwork, as well as derivative works.
Cross-Border Legal Compliance
Jurisdictional considerations are key when licensing NFTs globally. Ensure compliance with local IP laws.
Monitor and Enforce IP Rights
NFT platforms and creators should actively monitor for IP infringement and enforce rights through smart contracts and legal mechanisms.
6. Conclusion
The emergence of NFTs in the context of AI-generated art presents a new frontier for IPR, especially under the framework of the TRIPS Agreement. Key considerations for ensuring compliance include:
Ownership and authorship of AI-generated works, which must be attributed to humans.
Clear licensing terms that outline derivative rights and training data usage.
Global IP enforcement that ensures NFTs respect copyright, trademark, and patent laws in all jurisdictions.
In conclusion, building a TRIPS-compliant NFT framework requires careful planning around ownership, licensing, and enforcement, along with global coordination for cross-border transactions.
RELATED Blog
comments