Intellectual property protection

Non-fungible tokens – a new way to hold IP?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have been making headlines recently for being sold at auction for enormous sums of money.  Business school drop-out turned American DJ, 3LAU, apparently sold his NFT collection just over a month ago for $11.6 million USD ($15 million AUD).[1]  Grimes, otherwise known as Claire Boucher, a prominent musician and partner to Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, sold multiple digital artworks amounting to a total of $6 million USD ($7.79 million AUD).[2]

So what are NFTs and how can they help you protect your intellectual property (IP)?

How an NFT works

Non-fungible simply means unique or distinguishable from similar goods or assets within a market of trade.  This ‘non-fungibility’ is what distinguished NFTs from other tokens, like Bitcoin for example, which are tradeable currency indistinguishable from other Bitcoins.  NFT’s are integrated as part of a blockchain, generally, the Ethereum blockchain.[3]

The token element of an NFT represents the method by which ownership can be confirmed.  Ownership over cryptocurrencies and similar ‘digital properties’ is represented by tokens, which are like digital certificates establishing ownership.  Artists may designate or allocate a particular and distinguishable NFT over any digital artwork, including renderings, videos, paintings, albums or even electronic tickets to see their performances.

How do NFTs benefit rights holders

If you are the owner of digital IP, NFTs provide a meaningful way to either maintain ownership in that IP or transfer it to a prospective purchaser.  NFT’s are maintained on a blockchain which can be understood as a type of ledger which establishes the terms of sale of an NFT.  That is, the transfer of NFTs between contracting parties is facilitated, or underwritten, by blockchain technology.  As an NFT owner, proprietary rights in the artwork to which an NFT is allocated are protected by the security of blockchain technology.

Whilst, and this point is not decided in Australian law, NFTs may provide legal rights, they does not prevent others from using the IP.  Of course, neither does a trademark or patent, but NFTs are not some revolutionary creations addressing this issue.  In much the same way that Van Gogh’s Starry Night can be reprinted and owned by any individual, so too can works protected by NFTs.  In fact, you can view IP protected by NFTs here and here.

Legal issues that can arise with NFTs

As NFTs are relatively new, the legal requirements and implications have not yet fully presented themselves.  This makes the possible legal issues of NFTs quite broad and indefinable at this stage.  However, there are some things worth considering.  Most notably, what the purchaser is receiving in exchange for their money may not be accurate.  For example consider the sale of a animate GIF that the purchaser offers a very large monetary sum for at auction because they believe, possibly supported by actual or implied representations of such on behalf of the seller, that they are obtaining the one true original copy when they are in fact not.

Another concern is data security.  An NFT on a blockchain has a publicly verifiable chain of ownership meaning that, post-purchase, the purchaser has unrestricted access to the seller’s digital wallet address allowing them to see all transactions contained within.

Takeaways

NFTs have been making a name for themselves in the media of late as the new way to own IP.  As they are non-fungible, they do not equate to something of distinct monetary value, like exchanging currency would.  Ownership does not prevent others from accessing and using the IP.  Owning an NFT is like owning an original artwork.  The full legal framework and implications are still to be defined, however, accuracy of NFT description at sale and data security post-purchase can raise some concerning legal issues for both NFT sellers and purchasers.

Further information about non-fungible tokens

If you need advice on the purchase or sale of IP or the transfer of IP rights, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Forbes (2021). Largest NFT Sale Ever Came From A Business School Dropout Turned Star DJ.  Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2021/03/03/3lau-nft-nonfungible-tokens-justin-blau/?sh=75635f84643b.

[2] BBC (2021). NFT blockchain drives surge in digital art auctions.  Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56252738.

[3] Ethereum is a popular cryptocurrency with its own blockchain.


Related insights about IP purchase, sale or transfer

  • What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    The case of Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 (Lamont v Malishus) involved an action for infringement of a registered trade mark in Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  This case raised several issues, including, whether using a word as part of a domain name constituted “use” as…

    Read more …

  • Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    The case of International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd v International Hair Cosmetics Limited [2011] FCA 339 (Case) considered whether use of Australian registered trade marks on a British website constituted “use in Australia” under section 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  It was ultimately held that, despite use of the two…

    Read more …

  • Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…

    Read more …

  • Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    The recent copyright case of Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd trading as Hamlan Homes and Geelong Homes v Levonix Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 565 (Hamlan v Levonix)involved a dispute between Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd 006 313 015 (Hamlan) and Levonix Homes Pty Ltd ACN 168 777 384 (Levonix) that provides insight into preservation…

    Read more …

  • Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    On 5 November 2025, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth)(Bill) was introduced to the Federal Parliament to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)(Copyright Act).  The media release to the Bill explained that it proposed two (2) reforms to the Copyright Act by establishing Australia’s first statutory “orphan works” scheme and clarifying the permitted use of…

    Read more …

  • Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    On 26 October 2025, the Attorney-General, Hon Michelle Rowland MP, published a media release reiterating that the current Federal Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright infringement in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  The Attorney-General’s Department will instead engage in further consultations with members of the Copyright…

    Read more …

  • Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case

    Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case

    On 10 September 2025, Malcolm Burrows appeared live on Katherine Feeney’s ABC Radio program, “Legal Eagles” as the Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer to discuss legal issues associated with copyright subsisting in artificial intelligence (AI) training data.

    Read more …

  • Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    The general rule about ownership of copyright in a literary or artistic work is that copyright vests in the ‘original author’, as per section 35(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  From there, ownership depends on whether or not the original author is doing the work within the scope of their employment, in…

    Read more …

  • Understanding contributory liability in patent infringement

    Understanding contributory liability in patent infringement

    In Australia, the Patent Act 1990 (Cth) provides protection for inventors by preventing others from using, making, or selling patented inventions without permission.  The Act also extends liability to parties that are not directly infringing patents but may contribute to or enable patent infringement by supplying a product.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend