Copyright

Subscribe to Copyright

UPDATE: On July 8, 2022,  the USPTO and the Copyright Office responded to the Senators’ letter and indicated that they would conduct a joint study on the current and potential future applications of NFTs and their respective IP-related challenges.

With a market capitalization forecast of over $35 billion for 2022, there is no question that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are hugely popular. Despite this, the intellectual property rubric underlying these NFT offerings are inconsistent, confusing, and in many cases in conflict with applicable law. These issues apparently came to the attention of Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who, in a June 9, 2022 letter (as per their roles as the Ranking Member and Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property), requested that the USPTO and the Copyright Office undertake a joint study that addresses a number of IP legal issues around NFTs. Citing those roles and their broader interest in the “continued development and use of emerging technologies,” the Senators requested that the study address the following non-exclusive list of questions:

Minters of collectible non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have taken a wide range of approaches. In addition to variations in the means of distribution, token standards, governing smart contracts and platforms on which initial sales or transfers are made, the terms, conditions and content licenses (or lack thereof) under which users take possession of an NFT often differ from project to project. The recent delisting by OpenSea of the original (or “v1”) version of the popular “CryptoPunks” NFT art collection in light of a takedown notice issued pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by the collection’s creator, Larva Labs, and the ensuing DMCA counter-notification by v1 owners, illustrates some of the challenges that can result from the absence of clear written legal terms governing an NFT distribution.

So you bought an NFT. You now own what is effectively an immutable electronic deed meant to record ownership of an asset, often a digital artwork. You probably paid for the NFT upfront—and if the artist is popular, you may have paid a substantial sum. This is one factor that has made the NFT market so attractive for artists working in digital mediums, many of whom struggle to effectively monetize their work. Like traditional art gallery sales, NFT sales allow creators to reap substantial profits from one-time instantaneous transactions, offering a lucrative alternative to gradually generating revenue through licensing, merchandizing, or streaming (though many NFTs also allow an artist to reap a percentage of future downstream sales, too).

But while NFTs have created a new outlet for many artists, the technology has also been a boon to digital content thieves. Pirates can mint knockoff NFTs with nothing more than a digital file and some cryptocurrency, then sell those knockoffs to unsuspecting collectors. Forged art is as old as art itself, but because they feature exact copies of their stolen works, knockoff NFTs are often indistinguishable from their genuine counterparts. Moreover, unlike other online infringers (think purveyors of illegal streams or unauthorized t-shirts), an NFT pirate only needs one unwitting buyer to take the “one-of-a-kind” virtual bait before disappearing with the oft-substantial payment into anonymity, meaning the entire scam can happen in hours or even minutes. Amidst the resulting piracy boom, it falls to creators to protect both their fans and their IP by scanning platforms for infringing NFT sale listings and issue takedown requests. But even when they succeed in getting a sale listing removed, the knockoff NFT itself remains immutably on its blockchain and the infringing content usually remains elsewhere on the web.

Undoubtedly, digital creators will fight to protect their work. The question is, are current copyright protection procedures—specifically, those under the DMCA—up to the task?

The plot has thickened in the longest-running “whodunit” in the blockchain space: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin and author of the white paper that started it all, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System? Published in 2008, Nakamoto’s paper proposed a form of electronic cash that would operate purely peer-to-peer, without the need for a trusted intermediary (such as a centralized financial institution) and in a verifiable manner that protects against the “double-spend” problem. That white paper served as the launch pad for the Bitcoin network and inspired blockchain’s proliferation. Over a decade later, the true identity of Nakamoto and whether Nakamoto is a single person or a collective remain a mystery, despite speculation and multiple claims to the digital throne.

Recently, claimants turned to intellectual property registrations in their campaigns for recognition. In April 2019, Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright (who has long claimed to be Nakamoto) sparked controversy in the blockchain community by filing two copyright registrations claiming authorship of Nakamoto’s white paper (Reg. No. TXu002136996) and the original Bitcoin source code (Reg. No. TX0008708058). In the wake of Wright’s claims, on May 24, 2019, Wei Liu, reportedly a cryptocurrency entrepreneur and a Chinese citizen with an address in California, upped the ante by also filing a copyright registration (Reg. No. TX0008726120) asserting that he had in fact authored the white paper.

The gauntlet, it seemed, had been thrown down.

Content owners and their attorneys have been enthusiastically anticipating the use of blockchain as a mechanism for royalty accounting, recording the chain of title of intellectual property interests, and protecting, tracking and administering IP.

The enthusiasm is a little less vigorous, however, when the topic turns to the use of blockchain as a vehicle for content distribution.  Some of those discussions are still appealing to content owners and their counsel as they focus on the use of blockchain as a means of effectuating a decentralized digital rights management-type system to allow distribution of content to authorized users in a secure way. Copyright anxiety arises, however, with the recognition that the technology can also be used to facilitate the distribution of infringing content, notably in the form of anonymous transactions that are embodied in a block in a permanent and immutable manner.