Ipr In Nft-Based Music Copyright Enforcement.
1. Conceptual Background: IPR and Music NFTs
1.1 What is an NFT in Music?
A Non-Fungible Token (NFT) is a unique blockchain-based digital token that represents ownership or proof of authenticity of a digital or physical asset. In music, NFTs can represent:
A sound recording
A musical composition
Album artwork
Royalty shares
Exclusive access or licensing rights
Important legal point:
👉 Minting an NFT does NOT automatically transfer copyright unless explicitly stated in a contract.
2. Copyright in Music: Legal Framework
2.1 Copyright Components in Music
Music copyright generally consists of two distinct rights:
Musical composition (lyrics + melody)
Sound recording
Each has separate owners and licensing regimes.
2.2 Exclusive Rights (under most copyright laws)
Reproduction
Distribution
Public performance
Communication to the public
Adaptation
Making available digitally
NFT minting may infringe reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public rights.
3. Legal Issues Raised by Music NFTs
Unauthorized minting of copyrighted music
Confusion between ownership of NFT vs ownership of copyright
Infringement through resale and smart contracts
Jurisdictional challenges (blockchain is borderless)
Royalty enforcement through smart contracts
4. Case Laws on NFTs, Music & Digital Copyright Enforcement
Below are detailed case analyses (more than five), focusing on principles applicable to music NFTs, even where courts dealt with digital assets or NFTs generally.
Case 1: Hermès International v. Rothschild (MetaBirkins Case)
Facts:
Artist Mason Rothschild created “MetaBirkins” NFTs depicting digital versions of Hermès’ Birkin bags.
NFTs were sold without authorization.
Hermès claimed trademark and copyright infringement.
Court’s Reasoning:
NFTs are commercial products, not merely artistic expressions.
Use of protected IP in NFTs can cause consumer confusion.
Digital tokens do not escape traditional IP enforcement.
Relevance to Music NFTs:
Minting music NFTs without authorization constitutes infringement.
Even “artistic reinterpretation” does not override IP rights.
Platforms and creators can be held liable.
Principle Established:
👉 NFTs are not immune from IP laws; blockchain does not create a legal vacuum.
Case 2: Roc-A-Fella Records Inc. v. Damon Dash
Facts:
Damon Dash attempted to auction an NFT representing Jay-Z’s album Reasonable Doubt.
Roc-A-Fella claimed Dash did not own the copyright.
Court’s Decision:
Dash owned only a minority business interest, not copyright.
He had no authority to mint or sell the album as an NFT.
Auction was restrained by the court.
Importance for Music NFTs:
Only copyright owners (or licensees) can mint NFTs.
Business ownership ≠copyright ownership.
Courts can issue injunctions against NFT sales.
Key Takeaway:
👉 NFT minting requires clear copyright title or license.
Case 3: Warner Records Inc. v. Alchemy Inc.
Facts:
Defendant created unauthorized digital reproductions of music recordings.
Distributed them through new digital formats.
Court’s Holding:
Digital reproduction without permission infringes copyright.
Format or technology change does not negate infringement.
Application to NFTs:
Minting an NFT involves creating a digital copy.
Blockchain storage = reproduction + distribution.
Unauthorized music NFTs violate reproduction rights.
Legal Principle:
👉 Technological novelty does not override copyright law.
Case 4: Capitol Records LLC v. ReDigi Inc.
Facts:
ReDigi allowed resale of digital music files.
Claimed “digital first sale doctrine”.
Court’s Ruling:
Digital resale involves reproduction.
First sale doctrine does NOT apply to digital copies.
Relevance to Music NFTs:
NFT resale often involves new copies or access links.
Secondary market NFTs may still infringe copyright.
Resale rights must be contractually granted.
Key Rule:
👉 Digital assets cannot rely on traditional exhaustion doctrines.
Case 5: Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films
Facts:
Unauthorized sampling of music without license.
Even small samples were challenged.
Court’s Judgment:
“Get a license or do not sample.”
No de minimis defense for sound recordings.
NFT Application:
Even short music clips minted as NFTs require permission.
Sampling in NFT music = infringement.
Blockchain permanence aggravates liability.
Principle:
👉 Strict liability applies to unauthorized music use.
Case 6: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.
Facts:
MP3.com digitized CDs and made them available online.
Claimed fair use.
Court’s View:
Making digital copies without authorization is infringement.
Commercial intent defeated fair use defense.
NFT Connection:
Music NFTs are often monetized.
Commercial exploitation weakens fair use claims.
Outcome:
👉 Commercial digitization = infringement without license.
Case 7: RS v. Baigent (Digital Copyright Principle)
Contribution:
Reinforced that copyright subsists in digital formats.
Courts recognized evolving technological contexts.
Relevance:
Music NFTs fall squarely within protected digital works.
Blockchain format does not eliminate copyright subsistence.
5. Enforcement Mechanisms in Music NFTs
5.1 Traditional Legal Remedies
Injunctions
Damages
Account of profits
Platform takedown orders
5.2 Smart Contract–Based Enforcement
Automatic royalty distribution
Resale royalty clauses
Programmable licenses
5.3 Platform Liability
NFT marketplaces may be liable if:
They have knowledge of infringement
Fail to act on takedown notices
6. Jurisdictional Challenges
NFTs operate globally
Courts apply targeting test and effects doctrine
Place of minting, server location, and user base matter
7. Conclusion
NFT-based music distribution does not create new copyright rights—it merely introduces a new mode of exploitation. Courts worldwide consistently uphold that:
Copyright ownership is paramount
NFTs require explicit licensing
Unauthorized minting = infringement
Blockchain does not dilute legal accountability
In essence:
NFTs are technological wrappers; copyright law remains the core authority.
RELATED Blog
comments