Τhe thrill of NFTs: The trendy hybrid assets and their legal implications

Article by Panayiotis Antoniades*

Introduction: The thrill of NFTs

NFTs (Non-fungible tokens) have recently burst into an astonishing online hype. The marketplace of these assets encompasses eager capital holders that are willing to spend great amounts for the purchase of assets, yet in a profoundly unorthodox way. NFTs have revolutionized the way assets are perceived, transformed the media and collectible art industries, and justifiably caused a lot of doubtful conversations regarding their future. From the notorious JPG file of Beeple’s collage, Everydays: The First 5000 Days, sold for $69 million, to Twitter’s co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey’s first-ever tweet "just setting up my twttr" that auctioned for a charitable cause for $2.9 million.

NFT and Blockchain Technology

NFTs are digital certifications of ownership of a unique digital asset. The code of the NFT is encrypted on a blockchain, a shared database, which records transactions on a digital decentralized ledger. The concept of blockchain is considerably a kin to a list of data that are interconnected into “blocks”and thus any alterations on that digital catalogue are evident, making the technology transparent. [1]

The assets that are transferred between parties on a blockchain are called “tokens”, with the most prevalent version of all being cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies are essentially tokens of equal value stored on the blockchain ledger, whose ownership can be exchanged. The conceptual difference between crypto and NFTs is that the latter are exclusive software codes that signify ownership of digital “property”. They are unique and unprecedented digital assets, not identical to others, hence their non-exchangeability for equal value (non-fungible).[2]

Smart Contract and E-signature

The purchase of an NFT, essentially a contract between a buyer and a seller, is broadly a part of a sequence of innovatory progress in the field of contract-making. The proprietary transfer of the digital certificate of ownership is obtained using smart contract technology, which is a self-executing transfer of a digital asset using a blockchain protocol, predominantly on Ethereum. Smart contracts, in general, are programmed computer codes that execute certain actions when predetermined circumstances are materialized. Their similarity to traditional contracts is that the terms of the contract are still the foundation of the contractual relationship between the parties. Therefore, the terms of the smart contract will inter alia define the IP rights of each party.

The e-signature regime for the digital execution of legally binding contracts is covered by the “Regulation No 910/2014 on the electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market”. This legal framework provides for three types of e-signature, with the most advanced of them requiring a qualified signature creation device. Bearing in mind the Cypriot Law 55(I)/2018 "Providing for a legal framework for electronic identification and related issues", the third qualified type of signature has the equivalent judicial value of a handwritten signature.[3]

Ownership of Asset

The owner of an NFT acquires ownership rights of the digital asset they purchase, as a token in their token wallet. What needs to be clarified is that just as in a physical marketplace, the buyers earn the ownership rights, and not copyright nor reproduction rights, which remain to the seller, unless agreed otherwise by the NFT issuer on the terms of the contract.

Equivalent to this is the IP craze that occurred with the “Comedian” by Maurizio Cattelan (a.k.a “the banana duct-taped to a wall”), which auctioned for $150000. The buyers of the controversial artwork essentially bought the artwork’s certificate of authenticity in order to righ tfully display it, a banana duct-taped to the wall, as an authenticated and official piece by Cattelan. In particular, the owners can even loan the certificate to others, temporarily transferring to them their so-called “bragging rights”. In accordance with that, the owner of an NFT, which may be a real-life object or a digital piece of any sort, buys a unique version of an asset, acquiring the property rights of a non-interchangeable “token”. The actual substance of the asset may as debated as the one of the Cattelan artwork.

Personal Data Protection

The essential nature of blockchain is contradictory to personal data protection regulations. The vast majority of blockchain platforms are permissionless, which means that the ledger is public. The public availability and disclosure of the data, the “blocks”, contribute to the transparent and intriguing character of the blockchain ecosystem. Consequently, the compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation2016/679 (hereinafter GDPR) is certainly questionable.

One of the main principles of the GDPR is that the procession of personal data requires either the consent of the data subject or a legal basis (Art. 6 GDPR).The data of the users, that are being processed, are usually under pseudonymization and thus there should still be GDPR compliance. The consent of the parties in a smart contract-based transaction such as an NFT purchase at the present form is granted within sufficient prior awareness of the procession and exposure of the data after the initial acceptance. Given abstractly in advance, the data subject cannot track the process of their data nor acknowledge before hand the handling of them, especially if they are processed to the minimum required, in line with the range of the consent.

The decentralized form of a public blockchain, with no entity as a “data controller”, elevated every user in the network of computers of the blockchain as a controller. The cryptographic and multifaceted environment, in which NFTs are encrypted and purchased, is still legally under developed and personal data protection regulations have not been updated. Proposals regarding the technical specifications of the token’s blueprint, which is basically the design of the purchasable token, have advocated for the incorporation of the relevant legal requirements into the architecture of an NFT or cryptocurrency.[4]

Conclusion

Solely the NFT marketplace itself will demonstrate if this hybridform of an asset will be transmitted into other fields of investment or if the latest signs of decrease in demand will confirm the naysayers, who have been endlessly voicing their concerns about a bubble that will sooner or later pop. Only time will tell.

* Panayiotis Antoniades is Third-Year Law Student, University of Cyprus (panandoniades@gmail.com)

[1]Adam Chernichawm, Pratin Vallabhaneni, Shobha Lizaso ‘The Rise of NFTs – Opportunities and Legal Issues’ (White Case, 20 April 2021)<https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/rise-nfts-opportunities-and-legal-issues>accessed 15June 2021

[2]Robyn Conti, John Schmidt ‘What You Need To Know About Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)’ (Forbes Advisor, May 14, 2021) <https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/nft-non-fungible-token/>accessed15June 2021

[3]Stylianos Trillides, ‘Cyprus: The Validity Of Electronic Signatures Under Cyprus Law – COVID19’ (Mondaq Al,04 April 2020) <https://www.mondaq.com/cyprus/new-technology/909584/the-validity-of-electronic-signatures-under-cyprus-law-covid19>accessed 15June 2021

[4]Christian Wirth and Michael Kolain, ‘Privacy by blockchain design: a blockchain-enabled GDPR-compliant approach for handling personal data.’ [2018] Proceedings of 1st ERCIM Blockchain Workshop 2018. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET)

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more