Wipo Nft Copyright Policy Analysis
1. Introduction: NFTs and Copyright
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are blockchain-based digital assets representing unique digital works (art, music, videos, or other creative content).
Copyright issues arise because:
NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership
Buying an NFT generally gives token ownership, not reproduction or distribution rights.
Unauthorized minting
NFT marketplaces may host works minted without the artist’s consent.
Digital infringement and enforcement
NFTs can circulate globally, complicating copyright enforcement.
WIPO’s Role:
WIPO has issued guidance on copyright, moral rights, and enforcement for digital assets including NFTs.
Key principles:
The underlying work remains protected by copyright
NFT transactions may require licenses
Platforms may have secondary liability for infringement
2. Key Legal Principles for NFT Copyright
Originality
Only original works are copyrightable (art, music, digital designs).
Ownership vs License
Ownership of NFT ≠ ownership of copyright.
Copyright owner may grant licenses explicitly.
Infringement
Minting or selling someone else’s work without permission → copyright infringement.
Moral Rights
In many jurisdictions, NFT creators maintain right of attribution.
Platform Liability
Marketplaces may be liable under contributory infringement doctrines.
3. WIPO Guidance on NFTs
WIPO emphasizes blockchain transactions do not override copyright law.
NFT platforms should implement:
Rights verification before listing NFTs
DMCA-style takedown mechanisms
Clear terms of service indicating copyright obligations
4. Case Laws and Disputes
Case 1: Ryder Ripps v. Yuga Labs (Bored Ape Yacht Club, USA, 2022)
Facts:
Ryder Ripps minted NFTs resembling Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) images without authorization.
Issue:
Does minting derivative NFTs infringe copyright and trademarks?
Decision:
Court considered:
BAYC’s copyright in the digital images
Ripps’ NFTs reproduced copyrighted work in bad faith
Injunction issued, Ripps required to halt sales and return profits.
Significance:
NFTs are treated like traditional copyrighted works for enforcement.
Shows that derivative minting violates copyright and trademark simultaneously.
Case 2: Ryder Ripps v. Others – NFT “Copycat” Disputes (USA, 2023)
Facts:
Other artists minted NFTs of BAYC characters after Ripps case.
Outcome:
Courts applied substantial similarity and infringement tests from traditional copyright.
Significance:
Confirms NFT infringement is judged by traditional copyright standards.
Case 3: Patrick Bremer v. NFT Marketplace (Europe, 2022)
Facts:
Digital artist Bremer discovered his work was minted as NFTs on a European platform without permission.
Decision:
Platform required to delist NFTs
Artist retained copyright
Platform held secondary liability for failing to remove infringing content
Significance:
Aligns with WIPO recommendations: marketplaces must verify copyright and respond to takedowns.
Case 4: Beeple NFT Sale & Copyright Licensing (Christie’s Auction, USA, 2021)
Facts:
Beeple sold “Everydays” NFT for $69 million at auction.
Sale included explicit license terms, granting NFT buyer certain usage rights.
Significance:
Demonstrates NFT ownership can include copyright licenses if clearly defined.
Reinforces WIPO guidance on clarifying rights transfer during NFT sales.
Case 5: NBA Top Shot Dispute (USA, 2021-2022)
Facts:
Users minted NFTs of NBA highlights on unauthorized platforms.
Outcome:
Courts held that NBA copyrights over video content were infringed.
NFT marketplaces hosting unlicensed content were liable for contributory infringement.
Significance:
Reinforces principle: NFT minting does not create new copyright, and platforms must enforce rights.
Case 6: Grimes NFT Collection Dispute (USA/Canada, 2022)
Facts:
Grimes NFTs were sold; secondary creators attempted copying her artwork in derivative NFTs.
Outcome:
Cease-and-desist letters issued; platforms removed infringing NFTs.
Significance:
WIPO stresses moral rights and attribution in NFT enforcement.
Case 7: “CryptoPunks” Litigation (Larva Labs v. Third Parties, USA, 2022)
Facts:
Third parties minted and sold NFTs mimicking CryptoPunks art.
Decision:
Court recognized Larva Labs’ copyright; infringement established
Platforms removing infringing NFTs to avoid liability
Significance:
NFT copyrights treated like traditional digital artwork
Emphasizes marketplace responsibility.
5. Comparative Analysis: NFT Copyright Enforcement
| Principle | Observation from Cases | WIPO Guidance Alignment |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Buying NFT ≠ copyright transfer | Clear licenses needed |
| Unauthorized Minting | Courts enforce traditional copyright rules | Platforms must verify rights |
| Platform Liability | Marketplaces can be secondary infringers | DMCA-style notice/takedown required |
| Moral Rights | Attribution and integrity enforced | Recognized in NFT licensing & enforcement |
| Global Enforcement | Enforcement crosses borders via national courts | WIPO encourages international cooperation |
6. Key Takeaways
NFTs do not automatically confer copyright; underlying work is protected.
Unauthorized minting constitutes copyright infringement, regardless of blockchain ownership.
Marketplaces have secondary liability; must implement takedown procedures.
Licensing clarity is crucial—smart contracts alone do not override copyright law.
Moral rights and attribution are enforceable for NFT creators.
WIPO encourages harmonized international standards and guidance for NFT marketplaces.
RELATED Blog
comments