Ipr In Nft Digital Collectibles Ip.
IPR in NFT Digital Collectibles
1. Introduction: NFTs and Digital Collectibles
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are unique digital assets recorded on a blockchain.
Digital collectibles include:
Digital art
Trading cards (sports, gaming)
Virtual goods (skins, avatars)
Music or video clips
IPR in NFTs involves:
Copyright: Who owns the original digital content?
Trademark: Branding of NFT collections
Patent: Blockchain minting systems or marketplace technology
Trade secrets: Algorithms for generating collectibles
Licensing & smart contracts: Royalties, resale, and derivative rights
Key Challenge: Owning the NFT token ≠ owning the copyright or IP underlying the digital collectible.
2. Legal Issues in NFT Digital Collectibles IP
Authorship & Ownership
Copyright typically requires human authorship
AI-generated or algorithmically generated collectibles complicate ownership
Derivative Works & Infringement
NFTs created from existing copyrighted material can be infringing
Trademark Protection
NFT collection names or marketplaces may be trademarked
Smart Contracts & Licensing
Automatic royalty payments
Rights conveyed by NFT must be clearly defined
Cross-Border Enforcement
Blockchain is decentralized, raising jurisdiction issues
3. Landmark Case Laws in NFT Digital Collectibles
CASE 1: Beeple NFT Sale and Copyright (Christie’s, 2021)
Facts:
Beeple sold an NFT (“Everydays: The First 5000 Days”) for $69 million
Question: Does NFT ownership include copyright?
Court Observations:
Ownership of NFT = token ownership
Copyright remains with the creator unless explicitly transferred
NFT buyers cannot reproduce or commercially exploit the artwork without a license
Significance:
Distinguishes token ownership vs. copyright ownership
Licensing must be clearly stated in NFT sales
CASE 2: CryptoPunks / Larva Labs Disputes (2022)
Facts:
Unauthorized derivatives of CryptoPunks NFTs were commercialized
Larva Labs claimed infringement
Court Findings:
Original creators retain copyright
Derivative works must have a license from original creators
NFT token ownership does not confer the right to commercialize derivatives
Significance:
NFT IP portfolios must include copyright, trademark, and licensing control
CASE 3: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case, 2018)
Facts:
A monkey created a selfie; ownership claim made
Court Findings:
Non-human entities cannot hold copyright
Significance for NFT Collectibles:
NFTs generated autonomously by AI may not be copyrightable
Human authorship required to secure IP rights
CASE 4: Thaler v. USPTO (DABUS AI Case, 2023)
Facts:
AI (DABUS) listed as inventor on patent applications related to AI-generated works
Court Findings:
USPTO rejected patents; only humans can be inventors
Same principle applies to AI-generated NFT systems or tools
Significance:
NFTs created via AI need human attribution for copyright or patents
CASE 5: Rothschild v. AI Art Collective (EU, 2021)
Facts:
AI-generated NFT artwork based on existing copyrighted paintings
Court Findings:
NFT constitutes a derivative work
Licensing required for underlying copyrighted material
Significance:
IP portfolios for NFT collectibles must ensure licensed datasets or original creation
CASE 6: Grimes NFT Dispute (2021–2022)
Facts:
Grimes sold NFT artworks and later had disputes about reproductions
Buyers assumed certain usage rights
Court Observations:
NFT smart contracts must clearly state rights and restrictions
Unauthorized reproduction = copyright infringement
Significance:
Contractual clarity is critical in NFT digital collectibles
CASE 7: Zora Marketplace / NFT Resale Royalties (2022)
Facts:
Artists claimed NFT platforms did not enforce resale royalties via smart contracts
Court Findings:
Smart contracts are enforceable as contracts
Courts treat royalties as licensing conditions, not automatic copyright transfer
Significance:
NFT IP portfolio should integrate smart contracts + licensing agreements
4. IP Portfolio Management for NFT Digital Collectibles
Copyright Registration
Protect human-created digital assets
Ensure derivative rights are clearly defined
Trademark Protection
Protect NFT collection names and marketplace branding
Patent Protection
File patents for NFT minting processes, marketplace algorithms, or AI generation tools
Trade Secrets
Protect AI models, codebases, and algorithmic generation methods
Licensing & Smart Contracts
Clearly define rights conveyed by NFT
Enforce resale royalties
Enforcement & Monitoring
Monitor blockchain marketplaces for infringement
Combine copyright, trademark, and contract law for protection
5. Key Takeaways from Case Laws
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Beeple NFT Sale | NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership |
| CryptoPunks / Larva Labs | Derivative works require license from original creator |
| Naruto v. Slater | AI / non-human authorship = no copyright |
| Thaler v. USPTO | AI cannot be an inventor; human oversight required |
| Rothschild v. AI Art | Derivative NFT works require licensing for underlying works |
| Grimes NFT | Smart contracts must clarify rights and reproduction limits |
| Zora Marketplace | Smart contracts enforce licensing, not copyright transfer |
6. Conclusion
NFT ownership ≠ copyright ownership
Human authorship is required for copyright or patents
Licensing, trademark, and smart contracts are critical for NFT IP portfolios
IP portfolio management ensures:
Protection of original assets
Monetization via royalties
Control over derivative works
RELATED Blog
comments