Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NFTs and IP Protection
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are the latest trend to sweep markets from the art industry to professional sports leagues. These digital assets have existed for several years but have achieved explosive popularity only recently. In fact, the global market for NFTs reportedly hit over $40 billion in 2021. Despite this, the legal frameworks governing NFTs — which could significantly impact the risks and rewards of buying or selling NFTs — are still catching up. This article addresses another key legal dimension of NFTs: intellectual property protections.
What Are NFTs?
If you have not yet familiarized yourself with the basics of blockchain technology, that is the place to start. At its core, a blockchain is meant to be an immutable ledger that records one or a series of transactions, with each transaction verified by a peer-to-peer network rather than a centralized organization. The network constantly checks and validates the accuracy of the blockchain. Once on the blockchain, the record cannot be reversed or erased; one can only add a new blockchain recording the new information. Within that ledger technology, there are: 1) fungible tokens, meaning that one token can be replaced by any other token — a typical example is a cryptocurrency; and 2) non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
NFTs are completely unique digital assets and cannot be exchanged for one another. Instead, they primarily serve as digital tokens of ownership rendering the chain of custody more transparent for both NFT creators and purchasers. NFT purchasers can do due diligence by looking at the ledger. NFT creators can not only track the buyers or collectors interested in his or her work, but also benefit from it by, for example, embedding the provision of automatic resale royalties.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.