Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. March 2022
  6. Intellectual property: NFTs and IP rights

Intellectual property: NFTs and IP rights

Non-fungible tokens have become something of a craze, but their intellectual property position remains relatively untested and buyers should be aware of their limited rights
14th March 2022 | Alison Bryce

This article will look at the relationship between NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and intellectual property rights. We will examine two key areas: who has the right to create and sell NFTs, and what potential IP issues might arise when transferring NFTs.

What are NFTs?

However, before we dive into the law in this area, we should perhaps set out what NFTs are. NFTs are blockchain-based units with a unique ID linking them to an underlying asset. NFTs are essentially a one-of-a-kind token that cannot be replaced with something else (in other words they are non-fungible). They are minted so that they can connect to the underlying assets (be these digital or physical). Often, these underlying assets are protected by intellectual property rights such as copyright, designs or trade marks.

It is important to note that NFTs are not the asset itself, but instead just a certificate of ownership of the NFT. By way of an analogy, limited edition artist prints work in the same way: the artist’s signature and print number authenticate the work, indicating that it is one of a kind, but do not confer rights in the original artwork. The value of NFTs comes from their non-fungible nature. NFTs can be attributed to anything from drawings to music to a photo of
a designer handbag.

In the past year, we have seen NFTs being sold for increasingly high sums. For example, the digital artist Beeple sold an NFT of his collage “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” at Christie’s auction house for $69 million in March last year. Rather confusingly, anyone can copy a digital file, including what is included in an NFT; however, ownership of an NFT cannot be copied. Again it is helpful to consider the limited edition print analogy: you can download as many copies of Mona Lisa as you like, but only one person can own the signed and numbered print.

Rights to what?

The IP rights that come with NFTs are not straightforward, as purchasing them is not the same as purchasing a physical asset. Rights of ownership of the actual NFT are straightforward; this can be verified by the owner displaying proof of ownership of the NFT. However, having ownership of the NFT does not give ownership of the asset that the NFT represents. This was illustrated recently when former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey auctioned an NFT of his first tweet. The Valuable platform which facilitated the auction, noted the buyer was acquiring an “autographed certificate of the tweet”. This made it clear that purchase of said NFT did not transfer the copyright in the tweet to the buyer.

Confusion over who owns NFTs is further exacerbated when the seller’s right to the underlying asset is questioned. In January, we saw Hermès bring legal proceedings against an American artist, Mason Rothschild, for selling “MetaBirkin” NFTs inspired by Hermès’ Birkin bags. Hermès accused Rothschild of trying to profit from Hermès’ trade mark. In response, Rothschild noted that he was not selling or creating fake Birkin bags but instead making artworks that depict imaginary, fur-covered Birkin bags. Which, he went on to say, was a freedom of expression protected by the US constitution, likening his artworks to Andy Warhol’s use of Campbell’s soup cans.

In an ideal world, the minter or seller of the NFT would ensure they have the required rights and permissions to the files they are minting or selling. The potential repercussions of copying, selling, or publicly displaying works without authorisation from the original creator or brand owner in the physical world are the same when it comes to NFTs. There is a risk of copyright, design right and trade mark infringement.

Final thoughts

NFTs are still very much a new concept, and when it comes to IP, the position remains relatively untested.

Beeple, the digital artist we mentioned earlier, has likened the current NFT craze to the late 90s dotcom bubble.

Craze or not, it is a risk that many brand owners are taking seriously, with Nike, Gucci, Disney and L’Oréal all looking to expand their trade mark portfolios to include the virtual world.

The Author

Alison Bryce, partner, Dentons UK & Middle East LLP

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • People on the move: March 2022
  • Book reviews: March 2022
  • Reading for pleasure: March 2022

Perspectives

  • Opinion: Martin O'Brien
  • President's column: March 2022
  • Editorial: International order
  • Viewpoints: Endless arrear?
  • Profile: Elaine MacGlone

Features

  • Forward to the office
  • Fair compensation?
  • Pause for thought
  • FoI: rights needing a new law
  • Prepare for the great tax catch-up

Briefings

  • Civil court: Redaction – completing the picture
  • Corporate: Pandemic procurement: proper preferences?
  • Intellectual property: NFTs and IP rights
  • Agriculture: latest from the Land Court
  • Succession: Changes to reporting for excepted estates
  • Sport: Fan pressure and questions of morality
  • Property: New code for new homes
  • In-house: Democracy behind the scenes

In practice

  • Society Fellows speak out for legal aid
  • Strategy session draws a crowd
  • Ask Ash: Back to the old ways?
  • AML: time for a review, but how?
  • Cryptocurrency? No thank you
  • Going phishing
  • Race: time to be open
  • The Eternal Optimist: IT for dummies

Online exclusive

  • Survivorship and the insolvent estate
  • Cybersecurity actions for 2022
  • Paid leave and backdated claims
  • Exploring imposter syndrome in the legal profession

In this issue

  • Steven Hill: accredited technologist
  • EOTs: a business winner
  • "It's Game On!", law firms say
  • How workflow automation can improve your operations

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited