Miramax Sues Tarantino Over Pulp Fiction NFTs

Earlier this week, Miramax sued Quentin Tarantino over the filmmaker’s plans to drop NFTs associated with Pulp Fiction.  Here’s what you need to know.

The Lawsuit

On November 16, Miramax filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against Tarantino and his loan-out corporation, Visiona Romantica, Inc.  By the suit, Miramax alleges Tarantino does not have the necessary rights to proceed with his planned NFT drop because he granted Miramax broad rights in Pulp Fiction years ago. Per Miramax, Tarantino’s efforts to market and sell the NFTs breach Tarantino’s contractual obligations to Miramax, violate Miramax’s copyright and trademark rights in the film, and constitute unfair competition.

As background, Miramax recently noticed that Tarantino was marketing an NFT drop of  “7 uncut Pulp Fiction Scenes as Secret NFTs.”   According to Tarantino’s NFT website, the NFTs would include the “handwritten, never-before-seen screenplay of Pulp Fiction” and each “NFT consists of a single iconic scene, including personalized audio commentary from Quentin Tarantino,” revealing “secrets from the screenplay and a glimpse into the mind and creative process of [the filmmaker].”    

Miramax alleges that, in 1993, Tarantino and a non-party producer granted Miramax broad rights in Pulp Fiction: “all rights (including all copyrights and trademarks) in and to the Film (and all elements thereof in all stages of development and production) now or hereafter known including without limitation the right to distribute the Film in all media now or hereafter known (theatrical, non-theatrical, all forms of television, home video, etc.).”  

At the same time, Tarantino kept for himself a set of “Reserved Rights.” According to the Complaint, the “Reserved Rights” were limited to the “’soundtrack album, music publishing, live performance, print publication (including without limitation screenplay publication, ‘making of’ books, comic books and novelization, in audio and electronic formats as well, as applicable), interactive media, theatrical and television sequel and remake rights, and television series and spinoff rights.’” 

Miramax also claims the Reserved Rights were further “’subject to restrictions set forth elsewhere’” in the parties’ original rights agreement, “including Miramax’s rights of first negotiation and last matching rights with respect to certain deals.”  Miramax emphasizes that, while its rights included forward-looking language, Tarantino’s Reserved Rights “do not encompass any rights or media that were not known at the time of the Original Rights Agreement.” Miramax also alleges that subsequent agreements Tarantino signed further support its argument that Tarantino did not reserve broad rights in the film.  Miramax further alleges that it owns various registered and unregistered trademark rights in the name “PULP FICTION” and that Miramax has used this trademark to market various goods including branded T-shirts and other merchandise. 

Although Tarantino has not yet filed a response to the Complaint in court, his attorney has struck back in the media, stating that Tarantino “has the right to sell NFTs of his hand-written script for Pulp Fiction and this ham-fisted attempt to prevent him from doing so will fail.” Per the Complaint, Tarantino claims the NFT drop falls within his “Reserved Right” of print publication, which includes screenplay publication.  (Miramax, for its part, claims the NFT drop does not fall within this right.)

Take-Away Point

As more individuals, brands, and studios are minting NFTs associated with valuable properties created before NFTs existed, disputes are arising concerning the rights to mint.  For example, earlier this year, we covered Roc-A-Fella Records’ lawsuit against Damon Dash seeking to block an NFT sale associated with a Jay-Z album.  Given the prevalence of new NFT projects and the opportunity NFTs present to generate new income streams, it would not surprise us if we see more disputes arising over NFT projects.  

In order to reduce the potential risk of a rights dispute, minters should carefully review any prior grant of rights to others in the associated creative property in order to determine whether they have the rights to mint, and whether the contemplated NFT sale will interfere with rights already granted to or acquired by third parties.  This may depend on what is being tokenized – is it a physical work owned by the minter or a digital copy of a work?  Does the NFT creation and sale (and corresponding marketing) involve the exploitation of a copyright interest? To what extent may the minter rely on fair use? Will the minter make usage of another’s trademark rights that may confuse consumers into believing that the trademark holder is associated with the NFT drop? We’ll continue to watch this space.