北京时间 1 月 17 日早间消息,据报道,艺术家和品牌之间正在进行一场争夺战,他们都希望在元宇宙中争取自己的地盘和权利。艺术家和品牌正在为谁有权利出售 NFT 而争斗

On the morning of January 17th, Beijing time, it was reported that there is a battle going on between artists and brands, all of whom want to fight for their turf and rights in the metaverse. Artists and brands are fighting over who has the right to sell NFTs.
Olive Garden, Hermès, and Miramax have all taken legal action against NFT projects that the companies believe infringe their trademark or contractual rights.
Both the Olive Gardens and MetaBirkin NFT projects were taken off the popular token exchange marketplace OpenSea following legal letters from corporate lawyers.
For Brian Moore and Mike Lacher, Olive Garden is the most inclusive business, with all-you-can-eat bread sticks and their slogan of bringing every All guests are treated like family.
So, when the two digital artists wanted to create an NFT art collection that would be accessible to ordinary people, they turned to the two’s favorite casual restaurant. The 880 Non-Fungible Olive Gardens that Moore and Rachel created are basically digital photos of real-world Olive Garden restaurants, each encoded as a unique asset on the blockchain.
They sell these digital artworks for $19.99 and have also built an active Discord community where people can play as diners.
However, 10 days later, Olive Garden made it clear that they did not recognize the two artists and the NFT works they created.
On December 30 last year, Darden Restaurants, owner of Olive Garden, issued a takedown notice to OpenSea. Subsequently, OpenSea removed the organizer from the platform and began to block the transaction of related NFTs, which led to conflicts between the Olive Garden enthusiast community and the brand.
In the NFT boom, lawyers’ letters and legal threats are increasingly common. In some cases, artists can only actively defend their rights and are forced to play the role of “police” to “hunt down” crooks who make NFT versions of other people’s artworks and sell them. What’s more important is the contradiction between corporate brands and artists, who have different views on the purpose and value of NFTs.
There used to be a fairly clear distinction between the fair use of a company’s brand or trademark in a work of art and the commercial misappropriation of a brand to deceive customers, but due to the rise of blockchain technology and everyone’s desire to have a place in the metaverse, this kind of The distinction is blurring.
In the eyes of the holder, the NFT of a luxury watch (eg Rolex) is a work of art. However, for watchmakers considering commercial activities in the new virtual realm, the digital watch is another version of their product, which may be a breakthrough into the current metaverse.
Many brands think they will have a place in the metaverse, where having a digital store or selling digital products as NFTs could mean they can attract a new generation of consumers and generate more revenue for the business. Nike recently acquired an NFT company that makes digital sneakers and has even started selling digital versions of its products.
However, Hermes, Hollywood studio Miramax, etc. are preventing others from making and selling NFTs related to their brands. These disputes are just a few instances where new challenges and unresolved issues are likely to emerge more frequently as the internet evolves into an immersive, blockchain-based realm.
Artist Mason Rothschild, who created the NFT of the fur-covered Hermès Birkin bag, wrote in an open letter to Hermès in December: It is a wave of innovation and evolution, and your actions can help determine the future of art in the metaverse.”
Hermès said that they tend to focus on “the tangible expression of handmade objects”. “These NFTs infringe Hermès’ intellectual property and trademark rights, and they are counterfeiting the Hermès brand in the metaverse,” the company said.
This week, film director Quentin Tarantino will try to sell the NFT version of the script for the 1994 blockbuster “Golden Money” in what will be one of the most high-profile disputes involving NFTs.
The Quentin NFT Collection includes seven unique NFT pieces that will give their owners access to digital images of the original handwritten screenplay, as well as never-before-released audio commentary by Quentin. Miramax, the Hollywood studio that made the film, sued Quentin in November in an attempt to prevent it from selling the NFTs.
In the lawsuit, Miramax argued that Quentin’s NFT project violated a contract signed by the two parties in 1993. While the contract preserves Quentin’s rights to earn script fees from things like print books and interactive media, it doesn’t explicitly mention NFTs, which were invented 20 years after the movie was released. But the contract gives Miramax “all” other rights, which the company’s lawyers argue include the right to develop, market and sell NFTs. The crux of the question, according to UCLA professor Laustara, is whether Quentin’s contract with Miramax allows him to sell a script.
Quentin didn’t compromise. In its response to the lawsuit, its attorneys accused Miramax of using the concept of NFTs to confuse and mislead the court in an attempt to deprive artists such as Quentin of their long-term rights.
Bidding for Quentin’s first NFT will begin on January 17.
High expectations for NFTs are driving their value, and this is reflected in OpenSea — which was just recently valued at $13.3 billion by private investors.

Olive Garden、爱马仕和 Miramax 都针对 NFT 项目采取了法律行动,上述公司认为,这些项目侵犯了他们的商标或合同权利

在企业律师发出法律信函后,Olive Gardens 和 MetaBirkin NFT 项目都被从流行的代币交易市场 OpenSea 上拿下。

对布莱恩・摩尔(Brian Moore)和迈克・莱切尔(Mike Lacher)来说,Olive Garden 餐厅是包容性最强的企业,这家餐厅无限量供应面包条,而且他们的口号是把每一名客人都当做家人对待。

因此,当这两位数字艺术家想要创建一个 NFT 艺术集,让普通人感到容易接受时,他们将目光转向了这个两个人最喜欢的休闲餐厅。摩尔和莱切尔创建的 880 个 Non-Fungible Olive Gardens 基本上是现实世界中橄榄园餐厅的数字照片,每一个都在区块链上被编码为独特的资产。

他们与 19.99 美元的价格出售这些数字艺术品,并且还建立了一个活跃的 Discord 社区,人们在这里可以扮演成食客。

然而 10 天之后,Olive Garden 明确表示,他们不认可这两位艺术家以及他们所创造出来的 NFT 作品。

去年 12 月 30 日,Olive Garden 的所有方 Darden Restaurants 向 OpenSea 发出了下架通知。随后 OpenSea 从平台上移除了组织者,并且开始阻止相关 NFT 的交易,这一举动导致 Olive Garden 爱好者社区与品牌之间产生了矛盾。

在 NFT 热潮中,律师函和法律威胁越来越常见。在某些情况下,艺术家只能主动维权,被迫扮演“警察”的角色,“追捕”那些将别人的艺术品制作成 NFT 版本并出售的骗子。更重要的是企业品牌和艺术家之间的矛盾,双方对 NFT 的目的和价值有不同的看法。


在持有人眼中,豪华手表的 NFT(例如劳力士)是一个艺术品。然而,对于正在考虑在新的虚拟领域进行商业活动的钟表制造商来说,数字手表是他们产品的另一个版本,或许能以此为突破口,入局时下正火的元宇宙。

许多品牌认为自己会在元宇宙中占有一席之地,在元宇宙拥有一个数字商店,或者以 NFT 的形式销售数字产品可能意味着他们能够吸引新一代的消费者,为企业带来更多的营收。耐克最近收购了一家生产数字运动鞋的 NFT 公司,甚至还开始销售其产品的数字版本。

然而爱马仕、好莱坞工作室 Miramax 等,正制止他人制作、销售其品牌相关的 NFT。这些纠纷都是一些实例,随着互联网发展到一个沉浸式的、基于区块链的领域,新的挑战和未解决的问题可能会更加频繁地显现出来。

艺术家梅森・罗斯柴尔德(Mason Rothschild)创造了覆盖着皮草的爱马仕伯金手袋的 NFT 作品,他在 12 月收到爱马仕的停止令后,在一封致爱马仕的公开信中写道:“这是一个创新和进化的浪潮,你们的行动可以帮助决定艺术在元宇宙中的未来。”

爱马仕对表示,他们更倾向于专注于“手工实物的有形表达”。该公司称:“这些这些 NFT 侵犯了爱马仕的知识产权和商标权,它们正在元宇宙中假冒爱马仕品牌。”

本周,电影导演昆汀・塔伦蒂诺(Quentin Tarantino)将试图出售 1994 年大片《纸醉金迷》的 NFT 版剧本,这将是涉及 NFT 的最引人注目的纠纷之一。

昆汀 NFT 系列包括七个独特的 NFT 作品,这些 NFT 将使其所有者获得原始手写电影剧本的数字图像,以及昆汀以前从未发布的音频评论。制作这部电影的好莱坞工作室 Miramax 于 11 月起诉昆汀,试图阻止其出售这些 NFT。

在这起诉讼中,Miramax 认为昆汀的 NFT 项目违反了双方在 1993 年签订的合同。虽然该合同保留了昆汀从印刷书籍和互动媒体等方面赚取剧本费用的权利,但它并没有明确提到 NFT,因为 NFT 是在电影上映 20 年后才发明的。但是这份合同赋予了 Miramax“所有”其他权利,该公司律师认为,这包括开发、营销和销售 NFT 的权力。加州大学洛杉矶分校教授劳斯塔拉认为,这个问题的关键在于昆汀与 Miramax 之间的合同是否允许他出售一份剧本。

昆汀并未妥协。在对诉讼的回应中,其律师指责 Miramax 利用 NFTs 的概念来混淆视听,误导法院,试图剥夺昆汀等艺术家的长期权利。

昆汀的第一个 NFT 的竞标将于 1 月 17 日开始。

人们对 NFT 的高预期正在推动它的价值,这一点在 OpenSea 上得到了体现 —— 最近刚刚被私人投资者估价 133 亿美元。