就像之前的加密货币一样,非同质化代币(NFT)已经发展到一个临界点,如果投资者仍然对其视而不见,那就是不负责任的表现。
根据CoinDesk的数据,2020年上半年,NFT的销售总额为1370万美元。到2021年上半年,其销售额达到24.7亿美元,而且这些销售数字丝毫没有放缓的迹象。NFT有各种形状和大小,其范围包括篮球动图、数字赛马和独特生成的社交媒体形象。
随着越来越多的机构资金投入到NFT中,在这个价值数十亿美元的行业中,一些可能被小众行业忽视的问题突然变得重要起来。在NFT领域,一个此前被忽视的问题是知识产权法。是的,即使在非中心化的NFT世界中,版权法也同样适用,投资者在投资前应该了解其重要性。
美国版权局发布了一份基本规则概要,值得任何潜在的NFT投资者认真阅读。一般来说,任何原创作品,无论是音乐、绘画、书籍,还是任何其他最低限度的创造性有形作品,都受到法律的保护。尽管艺术作品的版权在艺术品被“固定下来”后就自动存在,但该艺术品需要在美国版权局注册,才能受到法律保护(即知识产权持有人能够起诉侵权行为)。版权和所有相关的知识产权属于创作者,但其中的部分或全部权利可以分配或转让给作品的任何后续购买者。
购买NFT的一个好处是,所有的鉴定都是在区块链上完成的。就以某人购买了一件Ghxst作品为例:只要买家能确认原始销售账户与艺术家有关联(这通常由市场 “验证”),那么买家就能确定其所购作品是真实的,无论它转手多少次。不过,区块链没有告诉买家的是,这件作品是否仅仅是别人受版权保护作品的复制品——这使得其所购作品变得一文不值,而且如果它被转卖的话,买家将承担实质性的法律责任。
无情的版权规则
这一点之所以重要,是因为版权法是极其无情的。根据《版权法》第504条,出售侵权作品,即使是完全无辜的行为人在不知情的情况下侵犯了他人的版权,也会使卖方自动承担实际损害赔偿和/或每次侵权750至3万美元的法定赔偿。如果发现侵权行为是故意的(也就是说,卖家知道这是侵权行为,但仍将其出售),那么每次侵权的法定赔偿就会上升到15万美元。
就以最近发生的一桩在NFT领域掀起一股旋风的事件为例。年仅12岁的程序员本亚明·艾哈迈德在推特上发帖描述他是如何启动自己的NFT项目的。在这个暖心故事的感召下,3350只由计算机生成的“怪异鲸鱼(Weird Whales) ”几乎瞬间售罄。突然之间,这些像素化鲸鱼图像的售价就从最初的0.033 ETH(当时约合66美元)上涨到几个小时后的3 ETH(约合6000美元)。随着越来越多的人加入进来,NFT领域的有影响力人士很快就将“怪异鲸鱼”追捧成下一个值得拥有的大项目。
然而,就在这番炒作进行得如火如荼之际,一位用户花了点时间在谷歌上搜索“像素鲸鱼”,结果发现该项目的艺术创意似乎是直接从另一项目复制的,所有这些“怪异鲸鱼”图像都是基于一张四年前的像素图片改编而成。目前还不清楚怪异鲸鱼项目是否构成知识产权盗窃。那张基础图片可能已被原作者置于公共领域,或者本亚明·艾哈迈德可能已获得使用许可。但在这一潜在的知识产权盗窃事件曝光后不久,人们便开始亏本出售他们的鲸鱼,该项目的发展势头随即减弱。无论制作图像的人是一位12岁的孩子,还是出于无心,这都无关紧要,因为根本就不存在无辜的版权侵犯行为这种事情。
假设“怪异鲸鱼”确实构成版权侵犯(我并不是说它们侵犯了版权),而你碰巧在所有这些信息出来之前,以每张6000美元的价格买了10张。再假设你在所有这些信息出来之前,以每张7000美元的价格卖掉它们,从而迅速获得了1万美元的总利润。版权所有者可以起诉你,要求你支付通过这些销售获得的总收入,即7万美元,以及高达30万美元的法定赔偿。倘若你明明知道“怪异鲸鱼” 可能侵犯版权,但你还是出售了这些图像,以减少你的损失?版权所有者可能会说你是故意侵权,你现在就将承担高达150万美元的赔偿。最好的情况是:你不得不将这些NFT返还给版权所有者,而你的6万美元初始投资也就打了水漂。
谨慎行事
那么,你能做些什么来保护自己不受这种情况影响呢?首先,在购买任何NFT项目之前,务必要做一番功课。调查一下开发者和艺术家,并搜索类似的项目。如果该项目有网站,调查你购买的到底是什么知识产权。如果你打算花一大笔钱,可能值得聘请律师来确定是否存在与该项目相匹配的注册版权。
其次,如果该项目似乎是打擦边球,游荡在知识产权盗窃和模仿之间(就像我最近在博客上谈论的 CryptoPhunks与CryptoPunks争端),那么你就应该理解其中蕴含的风险,并进行相应的投资。在NFT世界中,你难免碰到山寨项目。这意味着其潜在收益也会带来潜在风险。
本文无意传播对任何特定NFT项目或NFT世界的恐惧、不确定性或怀疑。我本人就是一位NFT投资者,并且非常看好这个行业的前景。然而,随着NFT成为一种更加严肃的投资工具,我们必须更加认真地关注这个领域蕴含的法律问题。(财富中文网)
本文作者乔纳森·施马尔菲德是一名知识产权和商业诉讼律师,供职于Chilton Yambert Porter LLP。他也是博客The NFTtorney的作者。
译者:任文科
就像之前的加密货币一样,非同质化代币(NFT)已经发展到一个临界点,如果投资者仍然对其视而不见,那就是不负责任的表现。
根据CoinDesk的数据,2020年上半年,NFT的销售总额为1370万美元。到2021年上半年,其销售额达到24.7亿美元,而且这些销售数字丝毫没有放缓的迹象。NFT有各种形状和大小,其范围包括篮球动图、数字赛马和独特生成的社交媒体形象。
随着越来越多的机构资金投入到NFT中,在这个价值数十亿美元的行业中,一些可能被小众行业忽视的问题突然变得重要起来。在NFT领域,一个此前被忽视的问题是知识产权法。是的,即使在非中心化的NFT世界中,版权法也同样适用,投资者在投资前应该了解其重要性。
美国版权局发布了一份基本规则概要,值得任何潜在的NFT投资者认真阅读。一般来说,任何原创作品,无论是音乐、绘画、书籍,还是任何其他最低限度的创造性有形作品,都受到法律的保护。尽管艺术作品的版权在艺术品被“固定下来”后就自动存在,但该艺术品需要在美国版权局注册,才能受到法律保护(即知识产权持有人能够起诉侵权行为)。版权和所有相关的知识产权属于创作者,但其中的部分或全部权利可以分配或转让给作品的任何后续购买者。
购买NFT的一个好处是,所有的鉴定都是在区块链上完成的。就以某人购买了一件Ghxst作品为例:只要买家能确认原始销售账户与艺术家有关联(这通常由市场 “验证”),那么买家就能确定其所购作品是真实的,无论它转手多少次。不过,区块链没有告诉买家的是,这件作品是否仅仅是别人受版权保护作品的复制品——这使得其所购作品变得一文不值,而且如果它被转卖的话,买家将承担实质性的法律责任。
无情的版权规则
这一点之所以重要,是因为版权法是极其无情的。根据《版权法》第504条,出售侵权作品,即使是完全无辜的行为人在不知情的情况下侵犯了他人的版权,也会使卖方自动承担实际损害赔偿和/或每次侵权750至3万美元的法定赔偿。如果发现侵权行为是故意的(也就是说,卖家知道这是侵权行为,但仍将其出售),那么每次侵权的法定赔偿就会上升到15万美元。
就以最近发生的一桩在NFT领域掀起一股旋风的事件为例。年仅12岁的程序员本亚明·艾哈迈德在推特上发帖描述他是如何启动自己的NFT项目的。在这个暖心故事的感召下,3350只由计算机生成的“怪异鲸鱼(Weird Whales) ”几乎瞬间售罄。突然之间,这些像素化鲸鱼图像的售价就从最初的0.033 ETH(当时约合66美元)上涨到几个小时后的3 ETH(约合6000美元)。随着越来越多的人加入进来,NFT领域的有影响力人士很快就将“怪异鲸鱼”追捧成下一个值得拥有的大项目。
然而,就在这番炒作进行得如火如荼之际,一位用户花了点时间在谷歌上搜索“像素鲸鱼”,结果发现该项目的艺术创意似乎是直接从另一项目复制的,所有这些“怪异鲸鱼”图像都是基于一张四年前的像素图片改编而成。目前还不清楚怪异鲸鱼项目是否构成知识产权盗窃。那张基础图片可能已被原作者置于公共领域,或者本亚明·艾哈迈德可能已获得使用许可。但在这一潜在的知识产权盗窃事件曝光后不久,人们便开始亏本出售他们的鲸鱼,该项目的发展势头随即减弱。无论制作图像的人是一位12岁的孩子,还是出于无心,这都无关紧要,因为根本就不存在无辜的版权侵犯行为这种事情。
假设“怪异鲸鱼”确实构成版权侵犯(我并不是说它们侵犯了版权),而你碰巧在所有这些信息出来之前,以每张6000美元的价格买了10张。再假设你在所有这些信息出来之前,以每张7000美元的价格卖掉它们,从而迅速获得了1万美元的总利润。版权所有者可以起诉你,要求你支付通过这些销售获得的总收入,即7万美元,以及高达30万美元的法定赔偿。倘若你明明知道“怪异鲸鱼” 可能侵犯版权,但你还是出售了这些图像,以减少你的损失?版权所有者可能会说你是故意侵权,你现在就将承担高达150万美元的赔偿。最好的情况是:你不得不将这些NFT返还给版权所有者,而你的6万美元初始投资也就打了水漂。
谨慎行事
那么,你能做些什么来保护自己不受这种情况影响呢?首先,在购买任何NFT项目之前,务必要做一番功课。调查一下开发者和艺术家,并搜索类似的项目。如果该项目有网站,调查你购买的到底是什么知识产权。如果你打算花一大笔钱,可能值得聘请律师来确定是否存在与该项目相匹配的注册版权。
其次,如果该项目似乎是打擦边球,游荡在知识产权盗窃和模仿之间(就像我最近在博客上谈论的 CryptoPhunks与CryptoPunks争端),那么你就应该理解其中蕴含的风险,并进行相应的投资。在NFT世界中,你难免碰到山寨项目。这意味着其潜在收益也会带来潜在风险。
本文无意传播对任何特定NFT项目或NFT世界的恐惧、不确定性或怀疑。我本人就是一位NFT投资者,并且非常看好这个行业的前景。然而,随着NFT成为一种更加严肃的投资工具,我们必须更加认真地关注这个领域蕴含的法律问题。(财富中文网)
本文作者乔纳森·施马尔菲德是一名知识产权和商业诉讼律师,供职于Chilton Yambert Porter LLP。他也是博客The NFTtorney的作者。
译者:任文科
NFTs, just like cryptocurrencies before them, have reached a point where it has become irresponsible for investors to just ignore them. In the first half of 2020, NFT sales totaled $13.7 million, according to CoinDesk. In the first half of 2021, those sales reached $2.47 billion, and those sales figures show no signs of slowing down. NFTs come in all shapes and sizes, with a range that spans basketball GIFs, digital racehorses, and uniquely generated social media avatars.
As more and more institutional money is invested into NFTs, issues that may have been ignored in a niche industry are suddenly becoming important in a multibillion-dollar industry. In the NFT sphere, one previously ignored issue is intellectual property (“IP”) law. Even in the decentralized world of NFTs, copyright laws apply, and investors should understand their importance prior to investing.
The United States Copyright Office put out a summary of its basic rules, which is worth a read for any would-be NFT investor. Generally, any original work of authorship, be it music, paintings, books, or any other even minimally creative tangible work, is protected under federal law. While the copyright on art exists automatically as soon as that art is “fixed,” that art needs to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to be legally protected (i.e., for the IP rights holder to be able to sue for infringement damages). The copyright and all associated IP rights belong to the creator of the work, but some or all of those rights can be assigned or transferred to any subsequent purchaser of the work.
One advantage to purchasing an NFT is that all authentication is done on the blockchain. Let’s take the example of somebody who buys a Ghxsts piece: As long as the buyer can confirm the original selling account is linked to the artist (which is often “verified” by the marketplace) then the buyer knows for a fact that purchased piece is authentic, no matter how many times it changes hands. What the blockchain doesn’t tell the buyer, though, is whether that piece was merely a copy of somebody else’s copyrighted work—rendering that purchase worthless and subjecting the buyer to substantial legal liability if it is resold.
Unforgiving copyright rules
The reason this is important is that copyright law is exceedingly unforgiving. Under section 504 of the Copyright Act, the sale of an infringing work, even if done by a completely innocent actor who unknowingly violated somebody else’s copyright, makes the seller automatically liable for actual damages and/or statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per infringement. If that infringement is found to be willful (i.e., the seller knew this was a copyright infringement but sold it anyway) that number bumps up to $150,000 per infringement.
Take, for example, a recent story which took the NFT world by storm. There was a Twitter thread in which a 12-year-old programmer named Benyamin Ahmed described how he was able to launch his own NFT project. The 3,350 computer-generated “Weird Whales” almost instantly sold out based on the heartwarming story. Suddenly, these pixelated whale images, which were originally sold for 0.033 ETH (about $66 at the time), were being sold hours later for 3 ETH ($6,000). As more people jumped in, NFT influencers pumped this project as the next big NFT to own.
However, while this hype was going on, one user took the time to google “pixel whale” and found that the art for the project appeared to be directly copied from another project, using a four-year-old pixel image as the base for all the Weird Whale images. It’s still not currently clear whether the Weird Whale project constitutes IP theft. That base image may have been placed in the public domain by the original artist, or Benyamin Ahmed may have had permission to use it. But shortly after this potential IP theft was revealed, people began selling their whales at a loss, and momentum for the project instantly faltered. It doesn’t matter whether the person who took the image was 12 years old and did so innocently, because there is no such thing as innocent copyright violation.
Let’s say hypothetically that the Weird Whales do constitute copyright infringement (and I’m not saying they do), and you happened to buy 10 of them at $6,000 each before all this information came out. Let’s say, also before all this news came out, you sold them for $7,000 each for a quick $10,000 total profit. The owner of the copyright could sue you for all $70,000 of gross revenue from those sales, and for up to $300,000 in statutory damages. Say you knew the Weird Whales were potentially copyright infringement, but you sold them anyway to limit your losses? The owner of the copyright could argue you were a willful infringer, and now you would be on the hook for up to $1.5 million. Best-case scenario: You would have to return the NFTs to the copyright owner, and you are out your $60,000 initial investment.
Play it safe
So what can you do to protect yourself from this situation? First, before buying any NFT project, do your own research. Look into the developer(s) and artist(s) and search for similar projects. If the project has a website, investigate exactly what IP rights you are buying. If you are expending large sums of money, it may be worth hiring an attorney to determine if there is a registered copyright matching the project.
Second, if the project seems to toe the fine line between intellectual property theft and parody (like the recent CryptoPhunks vs. CryptoPunks dispute, which I wrote about for my blog) go into it understanding your risks and invest accordingly. Copycat projects are unavoidable in the NFT world, which means that with their potential gains also come potential risks.
This article is not intended to FUD (meaning to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt about) any particular NFT project or NFTs in general. I am an NFT investor myself and am bullish on the industry. However, as NFTs become a more serious investment vehicle, more serious attention must be paid to the legal issues they represent.
Jonathan Schmalfeld is an intellectual property and complex commercial litigation attorney for Chilton Yambert Porter LLP, and author of the blog The NFTtorney.