The first case of NFT infringement: where did Bigverse go wrong?

Bigverse is a Metaverse brand integrating digital art innovation, Metaverse space creation and content ecological community creation. It supports the secondary transaction of digital collections. It is a digital art e-commerce platform with a large number of users and a rapid development in China.

Bigverse claims to be “the NFT platform with the largest number of users, the most artists, and the most active transactions in China”. But at the beginning of the development of the Metaverse, this seemingly complete platform for digital collections of heads also inevitably had some problems in the process of its development.

Collection transactions are priced freely, or there is a risk of speculation

The Bigverse platform can carry out the purchase and price comparison of NFT digital collections, and supports secondary resale on the platform, and the price is determined by the holder.

It is worth noting that some consumers sent such a controversial description in Bigverse’s explainer video, “If I don’t want to sell digital collections now, I can mark the resale price higher.”

Bigverse suggests that collectors raise the price of collections that they do not want to sell, but arbitrary pricing of digital collections will drive up their actual value, and the outside world will also question the hype of digital collections, which is not a good thing for digital collections that are still in their infancy. In the infancy of digital collections, the industry actually needs more standardized management.

The first case of NFT infringement: where did Bigverse go wrong?

The first case of NFT infringement, Bigverse platform is responsible

Recently, the Hangzhou Internet Court officially disclosed that the court has publicly heard a case of infringement of the right to disseminate information on the Internet, and QiCe has been authorized to enjoy the exclusive copyright property rights and rights protection rights of the IP series of “I am not a fat tiger” worldwide. .

However, Qice found that on Bigverse, a digital collection trading platform operated by Yuanyu Zhou, some users minted and released the “Fat Tiger Vaccination” NFT work, priced at 899 yuan.

And the NFT work is exactly the same as the illustration work published by the author of “I am not a fat tiger” on Weibo, and even the lower right corner of the NFT work has a watermark with the author’s Weibo name “Uncle Fujima”.

Therefore, Qice Company sued Yuan and Zhou Company to the court, requesting that Yuan and Zhou Company stop the infringement and compensate 100,000 yuan for losses.

Yuanyuzhou Company argued that it was a third-party platform, and the work involved was uploaded by the platform users without any responsibility. After the subsequent review found infringement, the work had been put into the address black hole, and it fulfilled the obligation to notify and delete it. There is no need to stop the infringement.

The Hangzhou Internet Court held that the NFT platform operated by the defendant Yuan and Zhou Company, as an NFT digital work transaction service platform, failed to perform its duty of attention to review and had subjective faults, and its behavior had constituted “aiding infringement”.

However, because the infringer’s actual profit from infringement and other losses caused by the plaintiff could not be determined, the court finally determined the amount of compensation to be 4,000 yuan based on the transaction amount of the infringing work, the fees charged by the defendant, and the reasonable expenses paid by the plaintiff to stop the infringement. Yuan Renminbi.

The first case of NFT infringement: where did Bigverse go wrong?

In this judgment, the court clarified the responsibilities of the NFT platform: the NFT digital works trading platform not only needs to fulfill the responsibilities of general network service providers, but also should establish a set of intellectual property review mechanisms to deal with the copyright aspects of NFT works traded on the platform. Do a preliminary review.

At first glance, the cause of this case is “disputes over infringement of the right to disseminate work information on the Internet”, which is very common in civil litigation cases, and the amount of compensation is not representative, and this case is not a final judgment.

However, because the “Fat Tiger Vaccination” involved in this case is an NFT work, it is widely regarded by the legal profession as “the first case of NFT infringement”.

The Hangzhou Internet Court pointed out: “In the absence of clear provisions in the current law, this case deals with the nature of NFTs and NFT digital works, the definition of behavior under the NFT transaction mode, the attributes of the NFT digital works trading platform, and the determination of liability, and the way of cessation of infringement. Active exploration has been carried out in such aspects, and corresponding judicial review standards have been formed, which are typical of new types of digital works involving NFTs.”

In the context of institutional vacancies, the first case provides experience

NFT is a new generation of innovative applications based on blockchain and smart contracts. As a large amount of digital content is spread and traded in the form of NFT, the phenomenon of piracy and infringement is also increasing. Unlike copyright infringement on the general Internet, once a digital work is cast as an infringing NFT and spread on the chain, it will make it difficult to clean up the information on the chain.

At present, most of the NFT transactions at home and abroad rely on the platform to complete, from the casting of NFT to the chain to the transaction, all through the platform, the platform generally obtains income through gas fees (can be understood as handling fees), transaction commissions, etc., in this new type of In the copyright circulation model, what duty of care should the platform assume for NFT works, and what responsibility it should bear in the event of infringement, has become a common concern in the industry.

From the legal level, the NFT offering, the duty of care and legal liability of the trading platform are clarified, and in the event of infringement, the difficult and complex issues such as the nature of the infringement and the scope of stopping the infringement are clearly defined.

In particular, innovating the form of cessation of infringement of NFT digital works, in addition to deleting online works, it should also clean up the NFT information after the chain, and stop the spread of infringing content to the greatest extent through technologies such as address black holes.

The judgment of Bigverse’s infringement case did not use the traditional notarization and evidence collection, but adopted the blockchain electronic evidence storage tool represented by “Filo Yin” as the evidence collection method, which was recognized by the court. With the characteristics of low cost, high efficiency and reliability, electronic depository has great application value to the evidence of infringement in typical Web3.0 network environment such as NFT.

Formulate transaction norms and strengthen industry self-discipline

There are omissions in price supervision on NFT digital collection platforms. At present, the prices of collections on major NFT digital collection platforms range from a few yuan, tens of yuan to tens of thousands of yuan.

In fact, NFT digital collections are highly sought after due to their limited and unique characteristics. At this stage, the supervision system for the secondary transaction of digital collections is not sound, resulting in the existence of digital collection transactions on some digital collection platforms, and even some platforms induce users. The high price also makes digital collections fall into the question of “hype”.

Although NFT digital collections are considered by many people to be the “tickets” to enter the Metaverse, and there are many trading platforms in the market, there are also some collectors who conduct multiple transactions in order to hype high returns.

At present, there are still many digital collections with inflated prices on second-hand trading platforms such as Xianyu. NFT technology enables the preservation and confirmation of digital collections.

However, the high-priced hype in the market still needs to use the power of the media to call on the digital collection head platform to strengthen self-discipline, and the platforms can also strengthen communication and establish industry self-discipline guidelines.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/the-first-case-of-nft-infringement-where-did-bigverse-go-wrong/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-06-22 23:30
Next 2022-06-22 23:32

Related articles