Table of contents
20 September marks International NFT Day, commemorating the date in 2017 when Dete Shirley, chief technology officer at Dapper Labs, first coined the term.
Since then, NFTs have established themselves as a mechanism for granting uniqueness, traceability and proof of ownership to digital files using blockchain technology.
Their rapid implementation led to an emerging market for so-called ‘crypto art,’ in which these pieces can be traded as assets and transferred securely, without the need for intermediaries. Although the phenomenon has gone through periods of euphoria and crisis, it remains fully relevant and poses major legal challenges in terms of copyright.
One of the main problems lies in the transfer of rights, since purchasing an NFT does not automatically mean acquiring the rights to exploit the work (the classic debate between the work and the material medium). This requires an express transfer or licence, which can be formalised through a smart contract or the terms and conditions of the platform on which it is purchased. In practice, the purchaser usually only obtains ownership of the token, but not the exploitation of the work associated with it.
Hence, the most obvious risk lies in copyright infringements, which mainly manifest themselves in two types of behaviour:
- Minting NFTs with unauthorised third-party works, i.e., taking an image, song or audiovisual piece created by a third party, converting it into an NFT and uploading it to the blockchain. This is the case in the lawsuit filed by Miramax Studios against director Quentin Tarantino for minting NFTs linked to unreleased scenes from the film Pulp Fiction.
- Reproducing or publicly communicating the NFT linked to the work without authorisation, either by making copies for sale as NFTs or by uploading it to a publicly accessible marketplace without the authorisation of the rights holder.
A case that has marked a turning point in the relationship between art and NFTs has been the Mango vs VEGAP case, which has set an important precedent in copyright law. This was Judgment No. 731/2025, of 5 June, upholding the appeal lodged by VEGAP, handed down by the Provincial Court of Barcelona in June 2025 against Mango. The textile company was ordered to pay €750,000 in compensation to VEGAP (the management entity for visual and plastic artists) for using works by Miró, Tàpies and Barceló to create NFTs linked to the opening of its store in New York in 2022.
Origin of the Mango vs VEGAP dispute
To mark the launch, Mango digitally transformed five paintings from its personal collection and uploaded them to the OpenSea platform, as well as exhibiting them in this format during the launch event. Although these NFTs could not be purchased or downloaded, the management organisation considered this to be unauthorised exploitation of protected works and sued the company for copyright infringement.
First instance: acquittal for Mango
The Commercial Court initially dismissed the claim and ordered VEGAP to pay the costs. In the court's opinion, Mango's actions consisted of a transformation of the works that had given rise to new original creations. It acknowledged that authorisation should have been sought, but considered the American doctrine of ‘fair use’ to be applicable, as it did not find any commercial purpose or actual harm to the authors.
The appeal: a twist in the case
The Provincial Court overturned the ruling handed down in the first instance, emphasising that being the physical owner of a painting does not confer any right to reproduce, transform or publicly communicate it without the express authorisation of the owners. In the judges' view, Mango not only infringed economic rights (reproduction, public communication), but also moral rights:
- Integrity of the work (Article 14.4 of the Intellectual Property Law), altered both in its material form and in its artistic meaning, by moving from a museum context to a commercial campaign.
- Right of disclosure (Article 14.1 of the Intellectual Property Law), as it is up to the author to decide not only whether their work is published for the first time, but also in what format, medium and context it is made available to the public.
Furthermore, the Provincial Court ruled out the applicability of US fair use (which is not regulated in Spanish law). In this regard, we must bear in mind that the doctrine of fair use constitutes an exception to the general intellectual property regime, characterised by its open and flexible nature, which makes it compatible with the Anglo-Saxon legal system. In contrast, in the continental system, and especially in Spanish law, limitations on copyright are expressly regulated by law through a closed list of exceptions (known as ‘limits’).
A pioneering ruling
This is the first ruling in Spain to directly address the creation of NFTs from visual artworks and sets a clear precedent: physical ownership of the medium of a work does not entitle the owner to exploit it digitally without the author's consent. The ruling opens up a broader debate on the challenges posed by digital art and its uses in environments such as the metaverse, and highlights the need for a legal framework capable of responding to these new forms of cultural and commercial exploitation.
The celebration of International NFT Day reminds us of the extent to which this technology has transformed the way we conceive of asset ownership in the digital realm. Furthermore, as the Mango vs. VEGAP case demonstrates, it is important to highlight that copyright remains an essential pillar for ensuring respect for creators and legal certainty in a constantly evolving market.
Our lawyers specializing in intellectual property can help you with such a complex and current issue as this. You can contact them here.
Add new comment