Home Blockchain First NFT Ownership Claims Dismissed on Appeal

First NFT Ownership Claims Dismissed on Appeal

by Melai Briones

The dispute between artist Kevin McCoy, auction house Sotheby’s, and Plaintiff Free Holdings over the ownership and sale of McCoy’s digital artwork Quantum highlights some interesting issues surrounding Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs).

In 2014, McCoy created Quantum and recorded its provenance on the Namecoin blockchain, effectively minting the first NFT. Fast forward seven years, and the artwork was sold at auction for almost $1.5 million. However, this sale sparked a legal battle over ownership rights.

Namecoin, an early blockchain and fork of the Bitcoin blockchain, allows users to register and manage domain names ending with the “.bit” top-level domain (TLD). Each registered Namecoin name is associated with a unique token that grants the user control over the domain name. McCoy’s original Namecoin token expired in 2015 and remained unclaimed until May 2021 when he minted a new NFT on the Ethereum blockchain.

Sotheby’s marketed Quantum for auction, describing it as originally minted on the Namecoin blockchain and later preserved on a token minted on Ethereum. However, Plaintiff Free Holdings had re-registered McCoy’s original expired Namecoin token and claimed ownership of the Namecoin-Quantum NFT. They attempted to contact McCoy to assert their rights but were allegedly ignored.

On August 23, 2021, Sotheby’s sold McCoy’s reminted Quantum NFT for $1,472,000, leading to Free Holdings suing McCoy and Sotheby’s in February 2022. Free Holdings claimed that the Defendants presented an inaccurate narrative during the sale and that they lost an opportunity to profit from the artwork.

The court dismissed Free Holdings’ complaint, stating that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a concrete injury or interest in the Ethereum-Quantum NFT. The court rejected the theory that re-registering McCoy’s expired Namecoin token conferred a property interest in Quantum itself. They also found no evidence of false statements or actions by the Defendants during the sale.

This dispute raises interesting questions about the nature of NFTs. Does the existence of identical copies of an NFT on different blockchains affect its value and ownership? How do different interpretations of ownership and registration impact the rights of NFT holders? These issues demonstrate the challenges and uncertainties surrounding the evolving NFT market.

In conclusion, while the legal battle over the ownership and sale of Quantum NFT highlights some interesting issues surrounding NFTs and blockchain technology, the court ultimately dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims, emphasizing the need for clearer standards and consensus in the NFT space.

You may also like

@2023 – All Right Reserved. Developed by Crypto Explorers