Buffl

NFT Overview

JR
by Joel R.

Legal Issues

  • Actual licensing terms? what ownership you have legally? Intellectual property law. Artist retains the copyright and reproduction rights…

  • Rampant copyright infringement is an ongoing problem in the space.

  • Securities law

    • Current NFTs probably are not

    • NFTs which give you a share of future profits

A widely accepted definition of “securities” stems from a 1946 Supreme Court decision, S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co.[2]  There, the Court explained that, while the Securities Act of 1933 does not offer a singular definition of security, the definition includes terms like “investment contract” or “certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement.”[3]  The term “investment contract,” in turn, was not defined by the Securities Act, but the Court relied on its historical use to deduce the following meaning: “[A]n investment contract . . . means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the effects of the promoter or a third party.”[4]  The Court specified that it was “immaterial whether the shares . . . are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests” in the enterprise.[5]

The SEC has issued a Framework for implementing the Howey investment contract analysis on to digital assets.[6]  The Framework explains that digital assets may be investment contracts where users (1) exchange some form of currency or consideration for the digital asset; (2) engage in a “common enterprise” through the digital asset; and (3) have reasonable expectations of profit derived from others’ efforts.  As to the last factor, the Framework lists several different characteristics of digital assets that could make them more likely to be investment contracts.  No individual factor is determinative, but generally, the more these factors are present with regard to a digital asset, the more likely it is that the asset would be an investment contract.  For example, one listed characteristic is that a digital asset is “not fully functional at the time of the offer or sale,” and purchasers would reasonably expect a sponsor, promoter, or other third party (often referred to as an “Active Participant”) to “further develop the functionality” of the asset.[7]  Another listed characteristic is that the digital asset is “transferable or traded on or through a secondary market or platform, or is expected to be in the future.”[8]  As discussed in a previous Securities Litigation Insider blog post, based on Howey and the Framework, the SEC has taken the position that cryptocurrencies may constitute investment contracts.[9] 

  • Money laundering by purchasing your own NFTs


Author

Joel R.

Information

Last changed