The legal framework around blockchain and cryptocurrencies assets in general, and NFTs in particular, is still evolving as governments around the world decide on how best to regulate this emerging asset class. 

In the U.S., under the legal test articulated in SEC v. Howey, a 1946 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court concerning how to define a security for purposes of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, NFTs could be deemed to be securities if they are deemed to represent an investment in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits derived from the efforts of others.  The rule from this case is sometimes referred to as the “Howey test”.  Thus, depending on how an NFT is created, structured, marketed and sold or distributed, such NFTs could be deemed securities.  Any sale of securities in the U.S. would be subject to the existing securities law framework requiring registration before the sale of securities to the public, unless there is an applicable exemption from such registration.  Accordingly, though it may be possible to mint and sell NFTs from one’s dorm room, it is certainly not advisable without legal counsel. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has not enacted express regulations regarding NFTs.  The SEC has, however, has provided some guidance around cryptocurrencies and blockchains over the years.  In it’s 2019 Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital Assets (the “Framework”), the SEC provided details on how it applied the Howey test in analyzing whether digital assets constituted one type of security – the “investment contract.”  And while whether a particular digital asset at the time of offer or sale satisfies the Howey test depends on the specific facts and circumstances, one key area of analysis is usually whether a purchaser of an NFT has a reasonable expectation of profit (or other financial returns) derived from the efforts of others.  The SEC noted in the Framework that “[p]rice appreciation resulting solely from external market forces (such as general inflationary trends or the economy) impacting the supply and demand for an underlying asset is generally not considered “profit” under the Howey test.  Another relevant consideration is that, unlike the many initial coin offerings launched in 2017, in the case of NFTs the network and digital asset are typically fully developed and operational.  Therefore, an NFT collectible sold on an established network whose value is derived from its own scarcity and uniqueness (and not from promotion or other efforts of others) would seem less likely to qualify as an “investment contract” under the Framework.  The sale of baseball cards or other collectibles is typically not deemed to be a sale of securities. 

Clearer laws and regulations around NFTs and cryptocurrencies would help the industry better grow and develop.  The blockchain and cryptocurrency community is hopeful that the new Chairman, Gary Gensler, will provide greater clarity and certainty to the law as he is rejoining government after a stint as a fintech professor at M.I.T.

The public is also watching the outcome of SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian A. Larsen, one of the leading cases regarding whether the sale of digital currencies constituted the sale of unregistered securities.  The SEC’s complaint alleges that Ripple raised over $1.3 billion in funds, beginning in 2013, through the sale of digital assets known as XRP in an unregistered securities offering to investors in the U.S. and worldwide.  There have not yet been any decisions in this case.

Intellectual Property

NFTs are most often used with artwork or photographs that physically exist.  For example, the most expensive sports-related NFT sold was an photo of LeBron James sold on Opensea for 10,000 Ether (currently worth approximately $25 million).

The manner in which this NFT was marketed and sold illustrates the current shortcomings around intellectual property ownership and NFTs – specifically that ownership of an NFT does not automatically grant ownership of the related underlying intellectual property rights in the work being reproduced in the NFT.  Indeed, for the James photo, the intellectual property rights to the original work needed to be transferred to the NFT by use of contract law.  The purchaser of this NFT was only granted the right to own the NFT for personal use and not commercialization purposes.  The RAW digital photo file of James was included in the transaction as the NFT sale page stated “This is the only time this particular shot will ever be listed on any exchange”.  The page contains a disclaimer clarifying that the user is “trading for the full non-commercial rights to this creation – anything past that, you’ll have to work with LeBron. Tell him Kimani says hi.” 

Source: OpenSea

Application of existing intellectual property law suggests that creation of on-chain or digital-native assets would result in a stronger claim to the ownership of the intellectual property rights with respect to such assets – as compared to existing physical assets being linked to digital tokens.  For example, in the e-sports realm, an artist may create a one-of-a-kind digital “skin” NFT that one player may purchase to use in an online game by wearing on his or her online avatar.  This digital artist would likely hold the copyright over the skin.  However, the intellectual property ownership claim has not yet been adjudicated.  There are also complicated laws around derivative works which may also be relevant.

Thus, for NFTs of off-chain assets (or non-digital native NFTs), the attendant intellectual property rights such as copyright or design rights remain in effect in the underlying work and are not automatically inherent, and do not reside, in the NFTs themselves.  The general rule is that an artist will own the copyright and design rights in any work that they produce. 

However, it has yet to be determined whether an NFT is transformative and thus stands alone with its own new copyright or rather will be deemed a translation or other derivative work of the original copyright, which would significantly limit the commercialization of NFTs based on off-chain assets where the creator of the NFT does not own the intellectual property rights to the underlying work.  In general, theNFT owner has no claim to underlying intellectual property rights in the original work.

Student-Athletes Have an Opportunity to Use NFTs To Profit from Their NIL Rights

Luke Garza has stated in interviews that he wants to be a trailblazer and set an example for his younger teammates:

“Now that I’m not a college athlete anymore, I’m not representing the University of Iowa as a basketball player,” he says. “I definitely am in favor, in the future, of college athletes being able to do this, and I see this as a potential way for college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness. Hopefully I can help show people the way... I think in the future, people can look at NFTs as an opportunity for college athletes when Name, Image, and Likeness is passed, because I’m very confident it will be.” ⁵

There will be more athletes like Luke Garza who may want to monetize their NIL rights with more control over the use of those rights.  The open source nature and composability of NFTs could be created in dorm rooms on existing platforms such as Opensea or Top Shot.  The technology exists and NFTs are a topic of the moment. 

The sale or licensing of NFTs by student-athletes has attendant legal issues.  For student-athletes, these may include whether the NFTs are securities that must be registered and what intellectual property rights the student-athlete has and may convey.  For universities, there also are concerns about their student-athletes including what liability may exist for the university if a student sells NFTs from, for example, her dorm room – potentially implicating elements of the Howey test.  Another concern is how will the university monitor the sale or licensing by students of NFTs that include university trademarks.  Luke Garza’s NFT shows him wearing the University of Iowa’s yellow and blue jersey.  Presumably, he received permission or a license from the University of Iowa to include such branding in his NFT.  And, universities need to understand what role they will take in educating and empowering their student-athletes and any consequent risk.   

Colleges and Universities Have An Opportunity to Create New Revenue Channels, With Legal Implications

As shown by Berkeley, colleges and universities also recognize that the sale of NFTs can create significant new revenue sources.  This is also true with university athletic departments with their iconic photo collections that may be converted into NFTs.