Abstract
Can two minds independently emerge with the same idea, crystallizing it, and if they do, who owns it? Back in kindergarten, it did not matter if you and your friends drew the same three mountains, a rising sun, a winding river, and a little hut; no one would lead you to court for having the hut facing south. The principle of Originality has always been preached from the onset of schooling, but is later criticized under intellectual property law, where the independent reuse of an idea can lead to legal consequences. Being a system designed to protect creators and their original work, even if two minds independently emerge with the same idea, will end up in a legal tangle; it does not matter if you saw the other person’s work first, what matters is who put it out first and how it is protected. This is Copyright law. To put it succinctly.
The recent surge of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), unique digital tokens recorded on a blockchain, has added new complexities to this landscape. NFTs make it possible to own provable digital assets such as art, music, or collectibles, but crucially, acquiring an NFT does not transfer ownership of the underlying artwork or its intellectual property.
The rise of NFTs has brought along a lot to catch up on for the millennials. In 2022, pop icon Justin Bieber purchased a digital artwork NFT for over $1.3 million. Despite common misconceptions, owning an NFT does not mean acquiring the intellectual property rights tied to the underlying artwork.
This article explores how courts, creators, and collectors are navigating these uncharted waters and evaluates whether the current legal framework is equipped to address the digital decentralization of creative assets that NFTs have ushered into the global intellectual property market.
Introduction
The digital market has opened various portals for artists, musicians, and developers to reach out and connect to share their work with a global audience in an instant, a far cry from the simplicity of childhood drawings exchanged in the classroom. As the lines between inspiration and imitation blur between the creators and the seated audiences it becomes difficult for the legal provisions that once worked to protect creativity have become increasingly difficult to apply. Particularly in respect to NFTs, the popularity soared, but the legal provisions soon caught up, for in the case of Hermès v. Mason Rothschild here court ruled in favor of Hermès, finding that Rothschild’s “MetaBirkin” NFTs misled buyers into thinking they were tied to the luxury brand. Since they resembled the iconic Birkin bag too closely, they were held to infringe trademark rights and weren’t protected as free artistic expression and did not qualify for First Amendment Protection this case set a key precedent for applying IP laws in the NFT space.
Before we delve into the platonic relationship between NFTs and Copyrights an accurate understanding of the underlying structure and function of NFTs is essential to addressing their legal implications.
Non-Fungible Tokens(NFTs) made their first appearance in the early 2020s, with instant popularity through initiatives like CryptoPunks in 2017 and Crypto Kitties, which allowed for blockchains backed ownership of virtual items. These seminal projects provided with the guarantees of digital scarcity and collectible appeal, establishing the groundwork for NFTs today.
The market surged significantly between 2020 and 2021, as NFTs soon became part of public awareness through prominent sales, such as Beeple’s fetching $69 million at Christie’s, along with celebrity-driven acquisitions like Justin Bieber’s $1. 3 million NFT purchase. This increase underscored that NFTs were not merely collectibles, but also served as instruments for artists and creators to earn from their creations without relying on traditional middlemen.
Nevertheless, the rapid growth was accompanied by doubt and a downturn in the market. By late 2022, trading volumes for NFTs saw a considerable decline, prompting worries about speculative practices, unclear legal situations, and the viability of digital ownership models. At present, NFTs are transitioning towards practical uses like tickets for events, membershiproles, digital identities, and confirming the authenticity of art moving beyond simple aesthetic or speculative purposes. Yet, as the lines between inspiration and imitation blur, the legal principles that once served to protect creativity have become increasingly difficult to apply.
Yet, as the lines between inspiration and imitation blur, the legal principles that once served to protect creativity have become increasingly difficult to apply. This article examines how the blurring boundaries between inspiration and imitation challenge the application of traditional copyright law in India, with a focus on the emergence of NFTs. It analyzes what legal ownership of digital creative works means in a decentralized, blockchain-based environment, thereby addressing the fundamental question of what it truly means to own a creative work in the digital age.