Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
China Court's Ruling On NFTs and Copyrights
The last few years have been quite a journey for nonfungible tokens (NFTs), going from niche art collectibles to global marketing tools. China, which has had an up-and-down relationship with the U.S. entertainment industry, became the latest country to offer a key regulatory framework in its first-ever case dealing with NFTs and the copyright violations they are sometimes saddled with. In its decision, the Hangzhou Internet Court in China held NFT marketplaces liable for poor vetting of copyright violations, imposing stricter burdens on the marketplaces than on e-commerce platforms that enjoy the protection of a "safe harbor rule." Shenzhen Qicedie Cultural Creativity Co. Ltd. v. Hangzhou Yuanyuzhou Technology Co. Ltd., (2022) Zhe 0192 Minchu No. 100.
For attorneys operating in the blockchain and digital asset space, it isn't too much of a surprise that a country that outlawed cryptocurrency trading last year is making a move that might discourage ambitious NFT entrepreneurs from entering the market. Regardless of which side of the opinion they may fall, however, attorneys find that the ruling highlights one of China's growing internal struggles: a longing to be on the cusp of the latest technology, all the while bearing a deep wariness about the financialization of digital assets.
Horace Lam, co-head of DLA Piper's Intellectual Property and Technology practice in Asia, said that, while he believes China's reticence around the NFT space may have "suppressed" user interest, his law firm doesn't find the recent court ruling unreasonable. "This ruling, notably, increases the burdens on NFT marketplaces and may cause them to hesitate to enter the Chinese market. However, the obligations set out by the court are, in our view, not overly unreasonable or excessive and do have their merits when considering the special technical features of NFTs," Lam said.
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?