Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The World of NFTs and Their Implications In Intellectual Property Law
NFTs have been all the rage in the world. Mike Winkelmann, a digital artist known professionally as Beeple, sold a collage of his digital images for a record-breaking $69 million. About two weeks later, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's first tweet ("just setting up my twttr") sold for $2.9 million. Sports icons like LeBron James and Tom Brady have leapt into this market, with a video clip of less than a minute showing James dunking a basketball having been sold for over $200,000. And now, in what many are calling a "social media experiment" that could inspire an episode in the dystopian sci-fi television series Black Mirror, one can buy and sell tokens based on speculating in celebrities' reputations on BitClout, a social cryptocurrency exchange platform.
So what exactly are NFTs, and how do they reconcile with the basic tenets of intellectual property law?
History of NFTs
An NFT, or non-fungible token, is a unit of data based on blockchain technology, which allows users to record and track transactions (such as sales and purchases) as well as ownership of the data on a decentralized, digital ledger. Content creators can "link" NFTs to a variety of works, including art, videos, music, or other digital files. The biggest distinction between an NFT and other forms of cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is fungibility: whereas one can exchange an individual Bitcoin for another, each NFT is entirely unique and not interchangeable. This makes an NFT similar to a collectible item, where the intrinsic value is inherently subjective and depends on how much others are willing to pay for it.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?