NFTs

Subscribe to NFTs via RSS

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:

Last month, our post about art NFTs and the DMCA highlighted the distinction between non-fungible tokens and the copyrighted works they represent. In the context of copyright, this dichotomy is generally uncontroversial: In most cases, an NFT merely points to an underlying work but does not contain a copy of the work it represents, and so it is conceptually and legally separate from that work for copyright purposes. But NFTs can be used to signify ownership of products beyond digital artworks—and where those products involve trademarks, new legal issues arise.

Enter Nike: On February 3, the apparel and footwear giant sued StockX, an online resale marketplace for sneakers and other collectibles, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging trademark infringement in connection with StockX’s issuance of NFTs featuring Nike sneakers. In the complaint, Nike asserts that these Nike-branded “Vault NFTs”—which StockX’s website says merely track ownership of a physical pair of sneakers in the company’s possession, like a virtual claims ticket or receipt—are in fact “new virtual products.” (Nike v. StockX LLC, No. 22-00983 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 3, 2022)). In their March 31 answer, StockX reasserts their website’s position and insists that “Vault NFTs are absolutely not ‘virtual products’ or digital sneakers” (emphasis in original). StockX instead claims that the Vault NFTs are merely a convenient use of new technology that allows buyers to track ownership without having to possess the physical sneaker, such that the “owner can make a future trade without incurring transaction costs, delay, or risk of damage or loss associated with shipping physical sneakers to StockX and then to the ultimate recipients.”

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 concept of the “metaverse” has garnered much press coverage of late, addressing such topics as the new appetite for metaverse investment opportunities, a recent virtual land boom, or just the promise of it all, where “crypto, gaming and capitalism collide.”  The term “metaverse,” which…

Except for the extensive coverage surrounding Coinbase’s IPO last week and the volatility in the price of cryptocurrencies, much of the air in the crypto space in the last few months has been taken up by the meteoric rise of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). At this point, we will assume that readers have at least a basic familiarity with NFTs. If not, we suggest a review of this SNL skit, as it is actually a pretty good summary.

It seems like new articles appear on a daily basis addressing some aspect of the legal issues associated with the NFT phenomenon. Interestingly, however, there have been few articles and little attention paid to what ultimately might be the most interesting development in this space, that is, the rise of fractional NFTs (F-NFTs).

F-NFTs Stir Up New Issues

Given that many NFTs are selling for significant amounts of money (in both fiat and digital currencies), the idea of fractionalization is taking shape to allow smaller investors to pool resources to purchase fractional interests of a NFT.  Additionally, there is great interest in the opportunity to buy fractional interests of large NFT collections. For example, it was recently reported that a collection of fifty CryptoPunks, which are early, now valuable NFT pixel art collectibles, were fractionalized into millions of tokens. The interest in fractionalization is not surprising given the high sale price of some NFTs and the widespread adoption of crowdfunding in many areas in e-commerce and investing.

Beyond mere entry into the market, purchasers can hold onto an F-NFT in the hope of seeing investment gains or realizing dividends, or else sell the F-NFT (from a technical perspective, referred to as a “shard”) to another investor. Several entities have emerged to facilitate the sale of F-NFTs to unlock liquidity in the market and create and trade fractions of NFTs.  For example, the NFT trading platform Niftex states that it allows owners to break NFTs into shards for purchase at a fixed price, with the fractions able to be subsequently traded in the market. The site also states that it allows shard owners some local governance rights on the platform with respect to a particular fraction set and provides an investor with a certain percentage of shards who wishes to own the entire digital asset with a method to bid on the remaining shards.

As most anything can be reduced to an NFT, it’s interesting to think of the possibilities of fractionalization. Now that the buying and trading of cryptocurrency has become mainstream, with major fintech platforms having begun to allow users to buy, sell or hold crypto and more and more decentralized finance (or DeFi) and decentralized applications (DApps) being developed to offer new digital solutions for various financial transactions, the continued fractionalization of NFTs is almost inevitable.

But is it legal?