Ipr In Nft-Based Video Content Licensing
IPR IN NFT-BASED VIDEO CONTENT LICENSING
1. Understanding the Core Idea
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are blockchain-based tokens that certify ownership or licensing rights over a digital asset. In video content NFTs, the token usually represents:
Ownership of a copy of a video
A license to use, display, distribute, or monetize the video
Proof of authenticity and provenance
⚠️ Key Legal Reality:
Buying an NFT does not automatically transfer copyright unless explicitly stated in the licensing terms.
2. Intellectual Property Rights Involved
(A) Copyright
Protects:
Cinematographic films
Audiovisual works
Animations, clips, reels, etc.
Rights include:
Reproduction
Distribution
Public performance
Communication to the public
Adaptation
NFTs usually transfer limited licenses, not ownership.
(B) Trademark
Used when:
Video content includes logos, brand names, or recognizable marks
NFTs are marketed under a brand identity
Unauthorized minting may amount to trademark infringement.
(C) Moral Rights
Creators retain:
Right of attribution
Right to integrity (protection against distortion)
Even NFT purchasers must respect these.
(D) Right of Publicity
If video includes:
Celebrities
Influencers
Athletes
Unauthorized NFT minting may violate personality rights.
3. Key Legal Issues in NFT Video Licensing
Who owns the copyright after minting?
Does the NFT grant commercial exploitation rights?
Can the buyer resell, remix, or monetize the video?
What happens if someone mints content they don’t own?
Are smart contracts legally enforceable?
Now let’s move to case laws, which really clarify these issues.
4. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS (DETAILED)
CASE 1: Hermès International v. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins Case)
Facts:
Rothschild created NFTs called “MetaBirkins”, which were digital videos/images inspired by Hermès’ Birkin bags.
NFTs were sold commercially without authorization.
Hermès claimed trademark infringement and dilution.
Legal Issue:
Can NFTs be protected as artistic expression?
Do trademark rights extend to virtual assets?
Court’s Reasoning:
NFTs were commercial products, not merely art.
The use of “Birkin” misled consumers into believing association with Hermès.
Trademark rights apply equally to digital and virtual goods.
Judgment:
Hermès won.
Court held that NFTs are goods in commerce, not immune under artistic freedom.
Relevance to Video NFT Licensing:
Using branded video content in NFTs requires explicit trademark licensing.
NFT creators cannot hide behind “digital art” arguments.
CASE 2: Dapper Labs v. UFC Fighters (UFC Moments NFTs)
Facts:
UFC fighters sued Dapper Labs for minting video highlight NFTs.
Fighters claimed their likeness and performances were used without consent.
NFTs were sold as collectible video clips.
Legal Issues:
Right of publicity
Ownership of performance rights
Whether NFT minting equals commercialization
Court’s Observations:
Performances are distinct from event ownership.
Fighters’ identities and performances carry independent economic value.
NFT sales are commercial exploitation.
Outcome:
Court allowed claims to proceed.
Settlement discussions followed.
Legal Principle:
Video NFTs featuring real people require personality rights clearance
Ownership of raw footage ≠ right to tokenize performances
CASE 3: Miramax v. Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction NFTs)
Facts:
Tarantino announced NFTs containing:
Video clips
Scanned screenplay pages
Miramax claimed it owned all film-related rights.
Legal Issues:
Scope of reserved rights
Whether NFTs are a new medium or covered by existing contracts
Court’s Analysis:
Contracts must be interpreted narrowly.
NFT rights were not explicitly granted to Tarantino.
NFTs are a new form of commercialization.
Settlement:
Case settled, but Miramax’s position was largely accepted.
Impact on Video Licensing:
NFT rights must be explicitly negotiated
Legacy contracts may not cover blockchain distribution
CASE 4: Nike v. StockX (Vault NFT Case)
Facts:
StockX sold NFTs representing Nike products.
NFTs included video animations and visuals tied to Nike branding.
StockX claimed NFTs were just “receipts”.
Legal Issues:
Trademark infringement
Whether NFTs are merely ownership certificates
Court’s Findings:
NFTs themselves are separate commercial products
Use of logos in NFT visuals can cause confusion
Key Takeaway:
NFT video visuals using brands require licensing
Calling NFTs “receipts” doesn’t bypass IP laws
CASE 5: Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps (BAYC NFT Dispute)
Facts:
Ripps created “RR/BAYC” NFTs using identical images and visuals.
Claimed they were “satirical”.
NFTs included video-style promotional content.
Legal Issues:
Copyright infringement
Trademark infringement
Fair use defense
Court’s Reasoning:
NFTs copied core assets verbatim.
Satire defense failed due to commercial intent.
NFTs caused market confusion.
Judgment:
Yuga Labs won.
Court confirmed NFTs are subject to standard IP laws.
Significance:
NFT videos cannot reuse copyrighted visuals without authorization.
Fair use is narrowly interpreted in NFT commerce.
CASE 6: Free Holdings Inc. v. McCoy (Unauthorized NFT Minting)
Facts:
McCoy minted video NFTs of digital art he did not own.
Claimed blockchain minting was merely “tokenization”.
Legal Issues:
Does minting itself constitute infringement?
Is blockchain recording neutral?
Court’s Holding:
Minting + listing for sale = reproduction and distribution.
Blockchain permanence aggravates infringement.
Principle Established:
Unauthorized NFT minting is direct copyright infringement
Platforms may face secondary liability
5. Licensing Models in NFT Video Content
(A) Ownership NFT
Buyer owns the token
Creator retains copyright
(B) Commercial License NFT
Buyer can monetize videos
Scope defined by smart contract
(C) Exclusive Licensing NFT
Single licensee
Higher value
(D) DAO-Based Licensing
Community governs video usage
Shared royalties via smart contracts
6. Legal Challenges Ahead
Enforceability of smart contracts
Jurisdictional conflicts
Moral rights protection
AI-generated video NFTs
Secondary market royalty enforcement
7. Conclusion
NFT-based video content licensing does not replace traditional IP law—it operates within it. Courts worldwide are consistently holding that:
NFTs are commercial assets
IP rights remain paramount
Licenses must be explicit
Unauthorized minting is infringement
In short:
Blockchain changes distribution, not ownership law.
RELATED Blog
comments