如何利用 NFT 保護智慧財產權

NFT 的智慧財產權是一個熱門話題，為了闡明這一點，我們收集了一位創始人兼律師以及一位智慧財產權律師的見解。本文首先介紹了為什麼利用智能合約進行保護至關重要，最後介紹了迅速採取行動保護版權的緊迫性。四位專家的見解涵蓋了透過法律手段保護數位資產的各個角度。

As the digital realm continues to expand, so does the need to protect intellectual property (IP) rights. With the advent of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), a unique set of challenges arises in enforcing these rights. Here are four expert insights to help navigate this landscape:

隨著數位領域的不斷擴大，保護智慧財產權 (IP) 的需求也不斷擴大。隨著不可替代代幣（NFT）的出現，在執行這些權利時出現了一系列獨特的挑戰。以下是四位專家的見解，可以幫助您駕馭這一局面：

1. Utilize Smart Contracts for Protection:

1.利用智能合約進行保護：

In the realm of NFTs, where digital ownership is paramount, business owners must prioritize protecting their digital assets. As a founder and attorney, I've witnessed firsthand the importance of establishing clear rights before minting an NFT. Smart contracts play a crucial role in this process, enabling the programming of specific conditions to safeguard ownership and track provenance. For instance, when creating an NFT for a piece of digital art, creators can ensure that resale royalties are embedded in the contract. A notable example is Beeple's sale of his art as NFTs for millions, securing ongoing royalties for future sales. This highlights the necessity of setting clear terms and conditions that uphold the creator's rights. To maintain these rights,続ける vigilance and monitoring of NFT marketplaces is essential to identify any unauthorized uses. This approach not only guards the creator's interests but also fosters trust within the digital-commerce ecosystem.

在 NFT 領域，數位所有權至關重要，企業主必須優先考慮保護其數位資產。作為創始人和律師，我親眼目睹了在鑄造 NFT 之前建立明確權利的重要性。智能合約在此過程中發揮著至關重要的作用，可以對特定條件進行編程，以保護所有權並追蹤來源。例如，當為一件數位藝術品創建 NFT 時，創作者可以確保轉售版稅嵌入合約中。一個著名的例子是 Beeple 將他的藝術品作為 NFT 出售，售價數百萬美元，從而為未來的銷售獲得持續的版稅。這凸顯了製定明確的條款和條件以維護創作者權利的必要性。為了維護這些權利，對 NFT 市場保持警惕和監控對於識別任何未經授權的使用至關重要。這種方法不僅保護了創作者的利益，也培養了數位商務生態系統內的信任。

2. Define Clear Licensing Terms:

2. 定義明確的授權條款：

Enforcing IP rights with NFTs can be a sticky issue. As an IP attorney, I must stress that NFTs exist in a digital space where traditional IP laws may not directly apply in the same way they do with physical goods or services. The key legal question centers around the ownership and licensing rights of the digital content tied to the NFT. While someone may purchase an NFT, that doesn't necessarily mean they own the copyright to the associated digital asset. For example, an artist might create an NFT tied to a piece of digital art. When someone buys that NFT, they essentially own the token, which verifies their ownership of that specific digital copy, but they don't automatically own the underlying intellectual property rights, like the right to reproduce or profit from the artwork. The artist would retain those rights unless explicitly transferred to the buyer through a licensing agreement.

使用 NFT 執行知識產權可能是一個棘手的問題。身為智慧財產權律師，我必須強調，NFT 存在於數位空間中，傳統智慧財產權法可能不會像實體商品或服務那樣直接適用。關鍵的法律問題集中在與 NFT 相關的數位內容的所有權和許可權。雖然有人可能購買 NFT，但這並不一定意味著他們擁有相關數位資產的版權。例如，藝術家可能會創建與一件數位藝術品相關的 NFT。當有人購買該NFT 時，他們本質上擁有該代幣，該代幣驗證了他們對該特定數位副本的所有權，但他們並不會自動擁有基礎智慧財產權，例如複製或從藝術品中獲利的權利。除非透過授權協議明確轉讓給買方，否則藝術家將保留這些權利。

A well-known example of this issue arose with Larva Labs, the creators of the popular “CryptoPunks” NFTs. Originally, buyers of CryptoPunks owned the digital collectible but did not have the commercial rights to use the artwork in other projects or profit from it. Over time, this led to disputes, as some buyers believed they should have full commercial rights to the characters they owned as NFTs. Larva Labs later adjusted their policy and granted broader usage rights, allowing owners to use their CryptoPunks for certain commercial purposes. This case highlights the importance of clear licensing terms when dealing with NFTs. Creators and platforms must explicitly define what rights are transferred with the sale of an NFT, and buyers need to be aware that purchasing an NFT often grants them ownership of the token but not necessarily the IP rights to the associated content.

這個問題的一個著名例子是 Larva Labs，它是流行的“CryptoPunks”NFT 的創建者。最初，CryptoPunks 的買家擁有該數位收藏品，但沒有在其他項目中使用該藝術品或從中獲利的商業權利。隨著時間的推移，這引發了爭議，因為一些買家認為他們應該對他們作為 NFT 擁有的角色擁有完全的商業權利。 Larva Labs 後來調整了他們的政策並授予了更廣泛的使用權，允許所有者將他們的 CryptoPunk 用於某些商業目的。此案例凸顯了在處理 NFT 時明確授權條款的重要性。創作者和平台必須明確定義隨著 NFT 的銷售而轉讓哪些權利，買家需要意識到購買 NFT 通常會授予他們代幣的所有權，但不一定是相關內容的智慧財產權。

3. Understand Limited-Use Rights in NFTs:

3. 了解 NFT 中的有限使用權利：

The enforcement of IP rights in NFTs usually falls on the underlying rights assigned to a digital asset. In the creation of an NFT, the originator will often retain some rights, such as copyright, unless it is transferred specifically. In addition, owners of NFTs must understand that purchasing an NFT does not imply ownership of the IP rights but rather limited-use rights. Infringement of such rights—by reproducing the NFT or using the artwork without permission, for example—is actionable by an IP holder. That may mean sending cease-and-desist letters and filing DMCA takedown notices, or it could mean litigation in egregious cases. Most NFT marketplaces also have their own IP infringement procedures that make enforcement much easier.

NFT 中智慧財產權的執行通常取決於分配給數位資產的基礎權利。在創建 NFT 時，發起者通常會保留一些權利，例如版權，除非專門轉讓。此外，NFT 的所有者必須明白，購買 NFT 並不意味著擁有智慧財產權，而是意味著有限的使用權。智慧財產權持有人可以對此類權利的侵犯（例如複製 NFT 或未經許可使用藝術品）提起訴訟。這可能意味著發送停止函並提交 DMCA 刪除通知，或者可能意味著對嚴重案件進行訴訟。大多數 NFT 市場也有自己的智慧財產權侵權程序，使執法更加容易。

However, the decentralized nature of NFTs means this is usually difficult to enforce, considering different jurisdictions may be an issue. Overall, clear licensing agreements and due diligence are important on both sides—of creators and buyers—for effective navigation in the IP rights of the NFT space.

然而，NFT 的去中心化性質意味著這通常很難執行，考慮到不同的司法管轄區可能是一個問題。總體而言，明確的授權協議和盡職調查對於創作者和購買者雙方都很重要，以有效導航 NFT 領域的智慧財產權。

4. Act Quickly to Protect Copyright:

4. 迅速採取行動保護版權：

A unique aspect of enforcing IP rights with NFTs is ensuring creators retain control over their work. In one instance, an NFT was minted using a client's copyrighted photograph without permission. We pursued legal action to remove the NFT from the marketplace and sought damages under copyright law. The lesson here is that NFT platforms don't override copyright law. While blockchain technology is new, the legal principles around intellectual property remain the same, and creators must act quickly to protect their rights when infringements occur.

使用 NFT 執行智慧財產權的一個獨特方面是確保創作者保留對其作品的控制權。在一個例子中，未經許可，使用客戶受版權保護的照片鑄造了 NFT。我們採取法律行動，將 NFT 從市場上移除，並根據版權法尋求損害賠償。這裡的教訓是，NFT 平台不會凌駕於版權法之上。雖然區塊鏈技術是新技術，但圍繞智慧財產權的法律原則保持不變，創作者必須在侵權行為發生時迅速採取行動保護自己的權利。