US agency: Blockchain records do not give NFT legal IP ownership

Coining NFTs or recording blockchain transactions does not automatically confer intellectual property rights.

Coining NFTs (non-homogeneous tokens) or recording blockchain transactions often leads to the illusion that the buyer has obtained full rights to the relevant art, music, photography or intellectual property. However, the legal ownership of these assets is far more complex than this and will not automatically transfer as the records on the chain are generated.

The legal framework still dominates intellectual property

Blockchain can immutably time-stamp and record digital files and transactions, but it cannot independently grant, transfer, or enforce intellectual property (IP) rights. The token records on the ledger only show who minted the NFT or when it acquired it, but do not directly establish legal ownership of the underlying assets.

Intellectual property rights are allocated through traditional legal systems, not through blockchain infrastructure. The ownership of copyrights, patents and trademarks stems from established legal processes such as copyright laws, trademark regulations and the patent office system. Blockchain acts as an immutable recorder rather than an arbiter of ownership or an executor of rights transfers.

The U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) addressed this issue in a recent joint study focusing on NFT and intellectual property. They concluded that existing intellectual property laws are sufficient to deal with NFT related matters without the need for new legislation or a unique registration system.

USPTO的指导文件澄清了这一区别，解释说NFT可以识别数字资产，存储关于其创作者或拥有者的信息，并指示资产的位置或来源。然而，NFT本身并非商品或服务，除非在单独的协议中明确转让，否则持有代币并不构成法律意义上的所有权。

例如，当一件数字艺术NFT以10万美元售出时，买家获得的是代币，而非底层的版权，除非相关合同明确传达了这些权利。美国法律严格区分资产所有权与其版权所有权，允许独占权从物体本身独立转移。在国际层面，根据《伯尔尼公约》，版权通常会自动产生，区块链仅作为带时间戳的主张——而非所有权的法律证明。

根据世界知识产权组织（WIPO）的说法，创作者无需进行区块链注册即可获得版权保护。尽管区块链可以为主张打上时间戳，但该体系本身无法验证这些主张在法律上是否有效。

小词典：WIPO（世界知识产权组织）：联合国下属机构，通过各国间的合作以及管理各种国际条约，在全球范围内促进和保护知识产权（IP）。

区块链与执行的局限性

Blockchains do not have the ability to verify authorship, analyze contracts, or consider cross-border conflicts of law. If someone casts an NFT with a photo they didn't create, the blockchain simply records that the transfer took place, not the legitimacy of the claim or any fraudulent intent.

Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents) are often tied to a particular jurisdiction, which means that legal protection is limited geographically. Blockchain can transfer tokens globally in seconds, but legal claims and enforcement depend on the laws of each country.

Blockchain may show transfers from wallet A to wallet B, but real-world disputes may involve determining whether the wallet owner legally holds the IP, what rights have been transferred, and whether the license is exclusive. Courts, intellectual property offices or formal contracts are still necessary to resolve these issues.

Ownership of NFT does not automatically give buyers legal rights to underlying assets. Blockchain technology records transactions and sources, but intellectual property rights must be established and transferred through legal agreements.

Timestamping and traceability as valuable use cases

The role of blockchain in intellectual property management is particularly prominent in terms of timestamping and traceability. By hashing a file and recording its hash value on the blockchain, creators can obtain a tamper-resistant, auditable record of the existence of a digital object at a specific time. This can serve as valuable evidence in disputes about the identity of the author or the date of creation.

For example, if two designers claim to be the first to create a certain logo, the blockchain can determine who owns a specific version of the logo at a specific moment in time. However, this record still only supports rather than proves legal authorship.

The future of smart contracts and intellectual property licensing

The greater potential of blockchain in the intellectual property field lies in simplifying licensing and royalty management. As the global recorded music market generates mainly US$31.7 billion in revenue through streaming media in 2025, the industry faces the challenge of tracking IP ownership, usage and royalties across platforms.

Smart contracts-self-executing blockchain programs-can embed royalty rules, automate revenue distribution, and respond to data provided by external oracles. For example, license terms could stipulate that a payment is triggered whenever the platform reports song usage, and the smart contract calculates and allocates funds accordingly.

Recent research highlights "smart legal contracts" and "smart licenses" as tools to automate royalty calculations, rule enforcement, and payment processing on blockchain networks. Despite this, blockchain still relies on external trusted sources to report off-chain events, such as actual product sales or streaming volume.

Real-world disputes suggest that blockchain records cannot resolve conflicts about authenticity or intellectual property infringement. In the MetaBirkins case involving Mason Rothschild's portrayal of the NFT's Hermès Birkin bag, a U.S. jury found trademark infringement and awarded Hermès $133,000 in damages, emphasizing that it was the legal system, not the blockchain, that solved such cases.

Nike's lawsuit against StockX, which involved NFTs related to Nike shoes, reached similar results, and the judge found StockX liable for selling 37 counterfeit products. Despite technological innovation, the basic issues of intellectual property law remain unchanged.

Towards a Hybrid Model of Intellectual Property Management

专家预计，未来的知识产权管理将把区块链的可审计跟踪和自动执行能力与传统法律结构相结合。区块链可以加强来源追溯，并作为许可和版税流的透明账本，但版权办公室、法院和知识产权机构可能仍将承担所有权和争议解决的主要责任。

WIPO正在积极开发基于区块链的知识产权生态系统中的互操作性和监管治理标准，预见了一个混合的未来。区块链技术可以促进验证、简化审计并加速行政任务，但它不能独立决定或强制执行法律所有权。

通过更好的整合，区块链可以自动化知识产权管理的某些方面，使权利管理更加高效、透明且防篡改，但技术的局限性依然清晰：法律框架最终决定权利本身。