Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office published a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register announcing that they are conducting a joint study regarding issues of intellectual property law and policy associated with non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Last year, we wrote about a few early lawsuits involving NFT projects including a Pulp Fiction drop and a planned Jay-Z album drop here and here. More recently, a number of other NFT-related lawsuits have been filed, including a case over the rights to an early NFT, cases against an artist and an artist’s estate over rights to mint, and suits by brands alleging third-party drops infringe and dilute their trademarks. Here’s a roundup of the cases.

Continuing on the NFT sales run, auction houses recently have announced the sale of NFTs that come with rights to 3-D print designs, use the artwork as a profile pic, and grant access to an online community of collectors. We discuss these sales below .

Recently, Roc-A-Fella Records, Inc. (“RAF”), which owns the rights to Jay-Z’s debut album Reasonable Doubt, sued one of the company’s three owners, Damon Dash, to block an NFT (non-fungible token) sale of the copyright to the album. RAF claims that, because it owns the copyright in the album, Dash has no right to sell it on his own. Shortly after filing suit, RAF obtained a court order temporarily barring Dash from selling any rights in the album. The case is a reminder that: (a) a rightsholder can block an improper NFT sale, and (b) minters and sales platforms should precisely identify the assets conveyed by any NFT.

Recently, visual artists have minted non-fungible tokens (NFTs) of their artwork and offered the NFTs for sale in curated online exhibitions. What copyright interest, if any, is the artist selling to the NFT buyer? What is in the contract between the auction house and the artist? Below we discuss some copyright considerations in connection with such NFT sales.