WEBVTT - Any Consequences For Will Smith Over Oscar Slap?

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.960 --> 0:00:14.280
<v Speaker 1>It was a moment that stunned the star studied audience

0:00:14.280 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 1>and the millions of people watching the oscars around the world.

0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>Hollywood star Will Smith slapping comedian Chris Rock after Rock

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:25.880
<v Speaker 1>made a joke about Smith's wife Jada. I love you

0:00:26.320 --> 0:00:28.680
<v Speaker 1>g I Jane two. Can't wait to see it? All right?

0:00:35.479 --> 0:00:38.800
<v Speaker 1>That was That was a nice one. Okay, I'm out here,

0:00:39.200 --> 0:00:56.560
<v Speaker 1>Oh Richard? Oh wow? Will Smith respected out of it? Wow? Dude,

0:00:56.840 --> 0:01:03.480
<v Speaker 1>it was a g I Jangel Keep my wife. Smith

0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:06.920
<v Speaker 1>apologized to the Film Academy as he accepted his Best

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:11.199
<v Speaker 1>Actor Oscar, but didn't apologize to Rock until the next day.

0:01:11.240 --> 0:01:14.640
<v Speaker 1>In a statement, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:19.040
<v Speaker 1>Sciences condemned Smith's actions and said it's starting a formal

0:01:19.160 --> 0:01:23.959
<v Speaker 1>review and will explore further actions and consequences in accordance

0:01:23.959 --> 0:01:27.520
<v Speaker 1>with our by law, standards of conduct and California law.

0:01:27.959 --> 0:01:31.640
<v Speaker 1>My guest is Rachel Pez, managing partner at Suibak, Phez

0:01:31.880 --> 0:01:35.679
<v Speaker 1>and Coleman and a former attorney for the Academy. Why

0:01:35.880 --> 0:01:40.240
<v Speaker 1>wasn't Will Smith removed from his seat right after the slap.

0:01:41.319 --> 0:01:44.560
<v Speaker 1>That's a good question, and I am sure that there

0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 1>was a huddle to discuss that, and I think on balance,

0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:54.080
<v Speaker 1>they decided to let him remain, possibly win his oscar,

0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:58.160
<v Speaker 1>and deal with it after. And I think that was

0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:02.440
<v Speaker 1>an approach that may have considered the backlash they might

0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:06.919
<v Speaker 1>get from removing will Smith, But I have to believe

0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 1>that was a very hard call. The Academy says it's

0:02:11.520 --> 0:02:15.440
<v Speaker 1>launching a formal review. What is there really to review?

0:02:15.680 --> 0:02:18.440
<v Speaker 1>It's all on tape and millions of people saw it.

0:02:19.120 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>I agree with you. I don't think there is a

0:02:21.240 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>ton to review there. The incident is fairly simple and

0:02:25.560 --> 0:02:30.480
<v Speaker 1>well documented. But they are probably putting the facts in

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:35.160
<v Speaker 1>line with their by laws and how they have handled

0:02:35.160 --> 0:02:38.360
<v Speaker 1>this in the past, so they will probably just review

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:41.240
<v Speaker 1>what they have. I don't think there's a ton of

0:02:41.320 --> 0:02:46.840
<v Speaker 1>facts not known, and then they will determine what codes

0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:51.840
<v Speaker 1>of conducts that violated, and then the appropriate consequence for

0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:56.360
<v Speaker 1>that violation. What are the possible consequences. I think what

0:02:56.440 --> 0:02:58.320
<v Speaker 1>they could do, not that I'm saying they will do.

0:02:58.480 --> 0:03:02.440
<v Speaker 1>I think it's everywhere from revoking his membership to the Academy.

0:03:02.840 --> 0:03:08.960
<v Speaker 1>They could revoke his oscar they could ban him from

0:03:09.080 --> 0:03:14.240
<v Speaker 1>attending the officers for one year, or in perpetuity, they

0:03:14.280 --> 0:03:19.160
<v Speaker 1>could suspend him for some amount of time from being

0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:23.200
<v Speaker 1>a member of the Academy. I think that runs the gamut.

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:26.160
<v Speaker 1>I would think they will also look to see if

0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:29.720
<v Speaker 1>they can find him under their by laws. Does Will

0:03:29.760 --> 0:03:34.840
<v Speaker 1>Smith's popularity and status as a mega star, well, that

0:03:35.040 --> 0:03:39.240
<v Speaker 1>stopped the Academy from doing anything drastic, from doing anything

0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 1>more than a slap on the wrist. The Academy has

0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:48.200
<v Speaker 1>been conservative with its approach to superstars in the past.

0:03:48.760 --> 0:03:54.920
<v Speaker 1>I think because it is a body made up of writers, directors,

0:03:54.960 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>and actors that punishing others in the industry and rastic

0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:05.200
<v Speaker 1>ways is very difficult for the Academy and they have

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:09.800
<v Speaker 1>to be very thoughtful about how they go about various

0:04:09.960 --> 0:04:14.720
<v Speaker 1>types of consequences. So I think Will Smith as a

0:04:14.760 --> 0:04:21.040
<v Speaker 1>mega superstar, that his status will affect how this investigation

0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 1>and how the ultimate resolution comes out. Under California law,

0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:30.719
<v Speaker 1>was the slap an assault and battery? Yes, absolutely, that

0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:34.760
<v Speaker 1>was a crime. It was a misdemeanor under California law.

0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:38.480
<v Speaker 1>That's an unwanted touching. It doesn't rise, I think to

0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 1>the level of a felony, which is a pretty bad

0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:45.560
<v Speaker 1>beating in that incident, but he could have been arrested

0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:48.400
<v Speaker 1>and charged with a misdemeanor for that act. The l

0:04:48.480 --> 0:04:51.480
<v Speaker 1>A p D says that Chris Rock refused to file

0:04:51.640 --> 0:04:55.880
<v Speaker 1>a police report. Without a police report, are they likely

0:04:55.920 --> 0:04:59.000
<v Speaker 1>to go ahead with charges? They are not. Not. In

0:04:59.080 --> 0:05:02.520
<v Speaker 1>an incident lie this where there's very little damage done

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the day, the police department, the

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:09.560
<v Speaker 1>d A. In this incident where it would be a misdemeanor,

0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:12.440
<v Speaker 1>the city attorney would likely handle it here in Los

0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:16.800
<v Speaker 1>Angeles and they are very unlikely to proceed without the

0:05:16.960 --> 0:05:21.760
<v Speaker 1>victims cooperation. The screen actors guilt it's the union that

0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 1>represents film and TV performers said that it's been in

0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:29.560
<v Speaker 1>contact with the Academy and ABC regarding the incident and

0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:33.400
<v Speaker 1>is working to ensure that this behavior is appropriately addressed.

0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:38.760
<v Speaker 1>Could it institute disciplinary proceedings again, I think they would

0:05:38.760 --> 0:05:42.039
<v Speaker 1>have to go to their by laws and their code

0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:46.000
<v Speaker 1>of conduct and what they have jurisdiction over. This did

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:50.279
<v Speaker 1>not take place at an official Screen Actors Guild event,

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:53.800
<v Speaker 1>but perhaps there is something inside of their by laws

0:05:53.839 --> 0:05:59.960
<v Speaker 1>that would monitor conduct outside of something that would be unionized,

0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:02.840
<v Speaker 1>and there would certainly be an argument that the Academy

0:06:02.839 --> 0:06:06.559
<v Speaker 1>Awards would fall under something like that, but that would

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:12.000
<v Speaker 1>be under their specific by laws that each actor gets

0:06:12.080 --> 0:06:15.280
<v Speaker 1>when they join. So if you had to take a guess,

0:06:16.000 --> 0:06:18.719
<v Speaker 1>what would you guess would be the consequences for will

0:06:18.800 --> 0:06:22.800
<v Speaker 1>Smith here? My guess is he gets to keep his oscar.

0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:25.120
<v Speaker 1>They're not going to take his oscar away, which is

0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:29.320
<v Speaker 1>a consequence they could implement if I were guessing, they

0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:32.520
<v Speaker 1>will either ban him for one year from attending the

0:06:32.560 --> 0:06:36.880
<v Speaker 1>oscars or suspend him for some three to six months

0:06:36.920 --> 0:06:39.599
<v Speaker 1>period of time from the academy. Rachel, tell me what

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:42.400
<v Speaker 1>you did it at the Academy. I worked at quin

0:06:42.440 --> 0:06:47.120
<v Speaker 1>Immanual and quin Immanuel is long time counsel for the Academy,

0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:51.000
<v Speaker 1>so I worked on various Academy cases, most of that

0:06:51.120 --> 0:06:58.960
<v Speaker 1>involved copyright and trademark infringement. And then during the Academy Awards,

0:06:59.600 --> 0:07:03.880
<v Speaker 1>there is a large group of lawyers from Quinn Emmanuel

0:07:04.279 --> 0:07:07.320
<v Speaker 1>as their counsel that comes to the Academy every year

0:07:07.760 --> 0:07:11.640
<v Speaker 1>in various for various jobs. But what I did several

0:07:11.680 --> 0:07:17.480
<v Speaker 1>times was interview people that don't have tickets. So there's

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:21.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of ticket transferring that goes on, which is

0:07:22.280 --> 0:07:27.400
<v Speaker 1>not allowed, so then you have to eject people from

0:07:27.440 --> 0:07:31.280
<v Speaker 1>the awards so that don't have tickets. And these are

0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:35.600
<v Speaker 1>kind of illegal issues that the Academy expects on Oscar night,

0:07:36.080 --> 0:07:38.120
<v Speaker 1>which is a lot like people trying to get in

0:07:38.200 --> 0:07:41.400
<v Speaker 1>that have no business being there because it is such

0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:45.160
<v Speaker 1>a big deal. But all of those issues happened generally

0:07:45.280 --> 0:07:49.720
<v Speaker 1>before the show or at the entrance, so they're very

0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:54.000
<v Speaker 1>prepared for that. Um, they have a city attorney on site,

0:07:54.040 --> 0:07:59.120
<v Speaker 1>they deputize people to do arrest should they be necessary,

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:02.600
<v Speaker 1>and all of acts happening before the show, so then

0:08:02.920 --> 0:08:05.840
<v Speaker 1>during the show they are not used to having this

0:08:05.960 --> 0:08:09.480
<v Speaker 1>kind of issue at all because generally all of that

0:08:09.560 --> 0:08:12.040
<v Speaker 1>has settled down and people sit in their seats and

0:08:12.160 --> 0:08:16.560
<v Speaker 1>enjoy the show from there. Obviously, never before has anyone

0:08:16.600 --> 0:08:21.240
<v Speaker 1>assaulted anyone on the stage. But is there anything close

0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:24.800
<v Speaker 1>to it that's happened. No. I think the things that

0:08:24.840 --> 0:08:28.360
<v Speaker 1>have happened at the Academy Awards show are mistakes being made.

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:31.800
<v Speaker 1>They announced the wrong movie something like that. But this

0:08:31.920 --> 0:08:36.960
<v Speaker 1>kind of thing has not been seen at all, particularly

0:08:37.000 --> 0:08:40.040
<v Speaker 1>among the presenters. I mean, maybe there's an off color

0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:44.280
<v Speaker 1>joke that mistakes are made on any live television, but

0:08:44.600 --> 0:08:49.000
<v Speaker 1>nothing like this where there was a criminal act performed

0:08:49.240 --> 0:08:54.600
<v Speaker 1>on stage from two very well known actors. I think

0:08:54.720 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>the academy, you know, those in charge there were probably

0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:02.800
<v Speaker 1>just done. I couldn't mobilize fast enough to figure out

0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:06.760
<v Speaker 1>it's sunny, you're in. What is happening? How is this

0:09:06.840 --> 0:09:09.120
<v Speaker 1>happen with this plan? So there is I think a

0:09:09.240 --> 0:09:13.480
<v Speaker 1>sock factor to it. But there are police officers there too, right,

0:09:13.640 --> 0:09:18.480
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, there's a gazillion celebrities. The security is high.

0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:22.520
<v Speaker 1>We'll see what happens. Thanks Rachel. That's Rachel PHz of

0:09:22.600 --> 0:09:27.280
<v Speaker 1>Swayback Phase and Coleman. The latest legal battle to hit

0:09:27.320 --> 0:09:29.880
<v Speaker 1>the world of n f T S is over neon

0:09:29.960 --> 0:09:34.920
<v Speaker 1>colored digital depictions of monkeys covered with cake, frosting and candles.

0:09:35.400 --> 0:09:38.480
<v Speaker 1>A group of artists created the so called Caked Apes

0:09:38.520 --> 0:09:42.199
<v Speaker 1>in January, a spinoff series of the wildly popular and

0:09:42.280 --> 0:09:46.360
<v Speaker 1>lucrative Board Ape Yacht Club collection. Now the artists have

0:09:46.480 --> 0:09:51.440
<v Speaker 1>filed dueling lawsuits. My guest is copyright law expert Tyler

0:09:51.480 --> 0:09:55.559
<v Speaker 1>A Choa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.

0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:59.440
<v Speaker 1>Tyler I don't know anything about these board apes. Can

0:09:59.480 --> 0:10:02.960
<v Speaker 1>you explain Lane what the board ap Yacht Club is about.

0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:09.080
<v Speaker 1>So the board Ape Yacht Club is a collection of

0:10:09.520 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 1>ten n f T s that are each associated with

0:10:14.840 --> 0:10:17.720
<v Speaker 1>one piece of digital art that are all based on

0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:22.520
<v Speaker 1>this graphic of a board ape face right. And each

0:10:22.640 --> 0:10:27.720
<v Speaker 1>one of the ten thousand apes is customized in some way,

0:10:27.960 --> 0:10:31.200
<v Speaker 1>with different clothing or different props, or perhaps changing the

0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:34.320
<v Speaker 1>expression a little, right. But they're all variations on the

0:10:34.400 --> 0:10:37.120
<v Speaker 1>same thing, so each would be a derivative work. So

0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:39.680
<v Speaker 1>there's a collection of ten thousand of these board apes,

0:10:40.120 --> 0:10:42.520
<v Speaker 1>and they sold n f t s ten th n

0:10:42.559 --> 0:10:45.200
<v Speaker 1>f t s, each one associated with a particular ape,

0:10:45.920 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>and in doing so they have promised certain rights to

0:10:50.400 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 1>the buyer that would not necessarily transfer with an n

0:10:55.120 --> 0:10:59.120
<v Speaker 1>f T, but which they have promised to transfer with

0:10:59.280 --> 0:11:02.880
<v Speaker 1>each nf to if you own it, what does it

0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:06.360
<v Speaker 1>give you the right to? So there is a set

0:11:06.360 --> 0:11:10.400
<v Speaker 1>of terms and conditions on their website, the board Ape

0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:15.480
<v Speaker 1>Yacht Club, And unfortunately this is kind of badly written.

0:11:15.840 --> 0:11:19.520
<v Speaker 1>So what it says is, quote, when you purchase an

0:11:19.600 --> 0:11:23.880
<v Speaker 1>n f T, you own the underlying board ape comma,

0:11:24.000 --> 0:11:27.200
<v Speaker 1>the art comma completely right, Well, what does that mean

0:11:27.280 --> 0:11:31.160
<v Speaker 1>does that mean you own a digital asset, doesn't mean

0:11:31.160 --> 0:11:33.560
<v Speaker 1>you own a copyright, it doesn't say. And then in

0:11:33.600 --> 0:11:37.160
<v Speaker 1>the next two paragraphs it says, well, we are granting

0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:41.960
<v Speaker 1>you a worldwide, royalty free license to use, copy and

0:11:42.040 --> 0:11:47.480
<v Speaker 1>display the purchased art for the following purposes. Right, So

0:11:47.720 --> 0:11:50.720
<v Speaker 1>that part of the license makes it look like they're

0:11:50.800 --> 0:11:53.719
<v Speaker 1>retaining ownership and they're only giving you a license to

0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:56.760
<v Speaker 1>use the work. Well, it doesn't specify whether it's an

0:11:56.760 --> 0:12:00.600
<v Speaker 1>exclusive license the right to exclude others, or whether it's

0:12:00.600 --> 0:12:05.280
<v Speaker 1>a non exclusive license. So they've definitely given you something.

0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:08.880
<v Speaker 1>They've given you some kind of license that accompanies the

0:12:08.960 --> 0:12:11.920
<v Speaker 1>n f T, and it's a license to use, copy

0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:16.520
<v Speaker 1>and display the artwork that is associated with your n

0:12:16.559 --> 0:12:19.880
<v Speaker 1>f T, But exactly however far you can go is unclear.

0:12:20.240 --> 0:12:23.080
<v Speaker 1>It does give you the right to create derivative works

0:12:23.120 --> 0:12:26.200
<v Speaker 1>based upon the art, so you can take your board

0:12:26.320 --> 0:12:30.520
<v Speaker 1>ape and you can modify your board ape in additional

0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:33.640
<v Speaker 1>ways to create new derivative works. And because of the

0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:36.760
<v Speaker 1>way copyright works, you would have a copyright in your

0:12:36.840 --> 0:12:41.040
<v Speaker 1>derivative ape, but that would not necessarily give you any

0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:44.520
<v Speaker 1>rights in the underlying ape that you've purchased that's governed

0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:49.120
<v Speaker 1>by the license on the website explain what this lawsuits about.

0:12:49.600 --> 0:12:53.320
<v Speaker 1>So this lawsuit is really just a breach of contract lawsuit,

0:12:53.679 --> 0:12:57.440
<v Speaker 1>and both parties are using copyright claims in order to

0:12:57.600 --> 0:13:01.600
<v Speaker 1>justify going to federal court rather than being in state court.

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:05.680
<v Speaker 1>But essentially, the parties entered into some sort of joint

0:13:05.760 --> 0:13:11.079
<v Speaker 1>venture to create and market derivative works based upon the

0:13:11.120 --> 0:13:14.000
<v Speaker 1>board ape n f T s that they owned, and

0:13:14.360 --> 0:13:17.240
<v Speaker 1>they called them the caked apes because their pictures of

0:13:17.280 --> 0:13:21.080
<v Speaker 1>apes are draped with all sorts of dripping foods that

0:13:21.160 --> 0:13:24.920
<v Speaker 1>resemble cakes and other desserts. So they've created a series

0:13:24.960 --> 0:13:27.600
<v Speaker 1>of n f t s that are derivative works of

0:13:27.640 --> 0:13:30.880
<v Speaker 1>the board apes. Again, they've purchased board apes, so they

0:13:30.880 --> 0:13:33.800
<v Speaker 1>have some sort of license to do that, and they

0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:36.400
<v Speaker 1>sold out and they were quite successful. The heart of

0:13:36.440 --> 0:13:40.800
<v Speaker 1>the dispute is how much money is owed to each

0:13:40.800 --> 0:13:46.319
<v Speaker 1>of the creators for doing this. So Taylor Whitley, who

0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:49.840
<v Speaker 1>was also known as Taylor WTF, he was paid ten

0:13:50.520 --> 0:13:54.240
<v Speaker 1>of the proceeds and he claims that he's owed an

0:13:54.280 --> 0:14:00.440
<v Speaker 1>additional thirty and the other parties say no, he was

0:14:00.520 --> 0:14:03.679
<v Speaker 1>only ever entitled to ten percent. And he's been paid

0:14:03.720 --> 0:14:06.640
<v Speaker 1>is ten percent, which he doesn't seem to deny, and

0:14:06.679 --> 0:14:09.600
<v Speaker 1>we don't owe him anything else. So that's the heart

0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:12.319
<v Speaker 1>of the dispute is how much money was he owed

0:14:12.840 --> 0:14:16.199
<v Speaker 1>and whether or not he's been paid. And the parties

0:14:16.240 --> 0:14:18.640
<v Speaker 1>agreed that he was owed at least ten percent and

0:14:18.640 --> 0:14:21.240
<v Speaker 1>that he was paid ten percent, but he says he

0:14:21.320 --> 0:14:24.440
<v Speaker 1>was owed in additional and the other parties to this

0:14:24.680 --> 0:14:28.120
<v Speaker 1>venture denied that. Now, I think it's telling that the

0:14:28.200 --> 0:14:31.440
<v Speaker 1>other parties alleged that there was a contract in writing

0:14:31.720 --> 0:14:34.440
<v Speaker 1>formed by an exchange of emails, and they have quoted

0:14:34.480 --> 0:14:39.920
<v Speaker 1>those emails and their complaints, whereas quickly Taylor WTF says

0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:43.840
<v Speaker 1>that he was owed in additional but he doesn't claim

0:14:43.880 --> 0:14:46.680
<v Speaker 1>to have anything in writing that says that. So it's

0:14:46.680 --> 0:14:49.600
<v Speaker 1>going to be very difficult for him to prove that

0:14:49.640 --> 0:14:53.920
<v Speaker 1>there's some sort of oral agreement that differs from the

0:14:53.960 --> 0:14:56.960
<v Speaker 1>written terms and the emails that were exchanged between the parties.

0:14:57.360 --> 0:15:00.840
<v Speaker 1>So where does copyright come in? So copyright comes in

0:15:00.840 --> 0:15:04.800
<v Speaker 1>in two ways. Taylor WTF suit was based on the

0:15:04.800 --> 0:15:08.480
<v Speaker 1>fact that he has sort of a personal logo and

0:15:08.760 --> 0:15:13.120
<v Speaker 1>abstract image of his face, which isn't very specific but okay,

0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:18.520
<v Speaker 1>and some percentage, some small percentage of the caked apes

0:15:19.560 --> 0:15:23.360
<v Speaker 1>use Taylor WTS personal logo as part of the background

0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:25.720
<v Speaker 1>or part of the wallpaper. So he says, while he

0:15:25.760 --> 0:15:29.760
<v Speaker 1>owns a copyright in his face logo, if you will,

0:15:30.400 --> 0:15:34.640
<v Speaker 1>and because some of the cake dates have that in

0:15:34.680 --> 0:15:38.520
<v Speaker 1>the background, and because he wasn't paid the money that

0:15:38.600 --> 0:15:42.840
<v Speaker 1>he was owed, that the other defendants are somehow infringing

0:15:42.880 --> 0:15:48.560
<v Speaker 1>his copyright by continuing to promote these caked apes that

0:15:48.640 --> 0:15:51.840
<v Speaker 1>have that image in the background. I don't think that's correct,

0:15:52.320 --> 0:15:56.760
<v Speaker 1>because they are not continuing to sell any of these things, right,

0:15:56.800 --> 0:16:00.480
<v Speaker 1>they've already been sold. Somebody else now owns a n

0:16:00.520 --> 0:16:04.320
<v Speaker 1>f T associated with those particular apes. It's not clear

0:16:04.400 --> 0:16:08.280
<v Speaker 1>that the plaintiffs are continuing to do anything that would

0:16:08.280 --> 0:16:12.440
<v Speaker 1>constitute copyright infringement. On the other side, the group that's

0:16:12.480 --> 0:16:17.320
<v Speaker 1>led by Nyeguard says that Taylor WTF made a d

0:16:17.480 --> 0:16:20.720
<v Speaker 1>m C a takedown notice that when he wasn't paid

0:16:20.760 --> 0:16:23.000
<v Speaker 1>the amount of money that he thinks he was owed,

0:16:23.600 --> 0:16:26.920
<v Speaker 1>that he sent d m C a takedown notices to

0:16:27.120 --> 0:16:29.840
<v Speaker 1>online market places that we're hosting some of these n

0:16:29.880 --> 0:16:32.800
<v Speaker 1>f T s and was successful in getting some of

0:16:32.800 --> 0:16:36.440
<v Speaker 1>them taken down, at least temporarily, and they're alleging a

0:16:36.520 --> 0:16:40.280
<v Speaker 1>violation of Section five twelve F, which says that you

0:16:40.360 --> 0:16:44.520
<v Speaker 1>can't misrepresent your ownership of a copyright when sending a

0:16:44.640 --> 0:16:48.760
<v Speaker 1>d m C a takedown notice. Morellion was spent on

0:16:49.080 --> 0:16:51.520
<v Speaker 1>n f T s last year. Do you think that

0:16:51.640 --> 0:16:54.720
<v Speaker 1>most buyers know what they're getting when they buy one

0:16:54.720 --> 0:16:59.480
<v Speaker 1>of these, Well, it's it's hard to speak for most buyers.

0:16:59.640 --> 0:17:02.560
<v Speaker 1>Don't what's in the head of any individual, But my

0:17:02.640 --> 0:17:06.280
<v Speaker 1>guests would be that most buyers don't understand what they're

0:17:06.320 --> 0:17:08.720
<v Speaker 1>getting when they buy an n f T. I would

0:17:08.720 --> 0:17:11.080
<v Speaker 1>imagine a lot of people think they're buying an n

0:17:11.160 --> 0:17:14.240
<v Speaker 1>f T that they're buying a copyright of some kind,

0:17:15.440 --> 0:17:18.760
<v Speaker 1>or at least some sort of license to use the

0:17:18.920 --> 0:17:24.199
<v Speaker 1>art in some way, and that isn't necessarily true. In

0:17:24.240 --> 0:17:27.400
<v Speaker 1>the case of the board apes, there is some sort

0:17:27.400 --> 0:17:29.639
<v Speaker 1>of license to use the copyright, even though it's a

0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:33.520
<v Speaker 1>little unclear, but at least it's there in writing. With

0:17:33.640 --> 0:17:35.679
<v Speaker 1>other n f t s, there might be a written

0:17:35.680 --> 0:17:38.959
<v Speaker 1>contract that specifies which can and can't do, and there

0:17:39.040 --> 0:17:42.800
<v Speaker 1>might not be. Other people might think that they are

0:17:42.840 --> 0:17:49.720
<v Speaker 1>buying some sort of ownership of an object of some kind,

0:17:51.160 --> 0:17:54.520
<v Speaker 1>even if it's an intangible object of some kind, and

0:17:54.680 --> 0:17:59.439
<v Speaker 1>that isn't necessarily true. Right. We've seen people minting and

0:17:59.480 --> 0:18:01.840
<v Speaker 1>selling n f T s of artwork that they didn't

0:18:01.840 --> 0:18:05.399
<v Speaker 1>create and that they don't own, and that they don't

0:18:05.480 --> 0:18:08.760
<v Speaker 1>even have a copy of on a server. Right, So

0:18:08.800 --> 0:18:11.040
<v Speaker 1>there might be a promise that you're buying some sort

0:18:11.080 --> 0:18:16.480
<v Speaker 1>of copy, a digital version of this artwork that resides

0:18:16.520 --> 0:18:22.280
<v Speaker 1>on a particular server, But there's no guarantee that two years,

0:18:22.359 --> 0:18:25.960
<v Speaker 1>five years, ten years from now, that server will still exist,

0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:29.119
<v Speaker 1>or that there will be a digital copy of the

0:18:29.200 --> 0:18:32.560
<v Speaker 1>artwork on that server. It may very well be when

0:18:32.560 --> 0:18:36.000
<v Speaker 1>you buy an n f T you're buying nothing more

0:18:36.040 --> 0:18:40.960
<v Speaker 1>than the token itself. That's why I wonder, because there

0:18:41.000 --> 0:18:44.600
<v Speaker 1>are some cases where clearly they're not getting the copyright

0:18:44.880 --> 0:18:49.800
<v Speaker 1>and the artist is going to get some secondary profits.

0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:52.679
<v Speaker 1>So why are they paying so much for these n

0:18:52.720 --> 0:18:55.479
<v Speaker 1>f T s when you're not getting the copyright. So

0:18:55.600 --> 0:18:58.639
<v Speaker 1>there's two reasons I think why people buy n f

0:18:58.680 --> 0:19:03.800
<v Speaker 1>T s. One is that it's sort of a status symbol. Right,

0:19:03.960 --> 0:19:07.280
<v Speaker 1>I own an n f T. I've got this record

0:19:07.359 --> 0:19:11.400
<v Speaker 1>that says I own it, and that might be a

0:19:11.400 --> 0:19:16.760
<v Speaker 1>great bragging point among your friends, among the twitter verse,

0:19:17.320 --> 0:19:21.439
<v Speaker 1>among other celebrities, that sort of thing. The other reason

0:19:21.720 --> 0:19:24.280
<v Speaker 1>is that people think these are going to be valuable

0:19:24.280 --> 0:19:28.640
<v Speaker 1>and they're going to make money, and um, I think

0:19:28.680 --> 0:19:34.640
<v Speaker 1>that's unlikely for most n f T s. H It's

0:19:34.760 --> 0:19:38.800
<v Speaker 1>possible with some n f t s, but you know,

0:19:40.040 --> 0:19:43.960
<v Speaker 1>people who invest early in the process might be able

0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:47.359
<v Speaker 1>to flip a n f T within a few months

0:19:47.560 --> 0:19:50.879
<v Speaker 1>at a profit. But I think people who are holding

0:19:50.920 --> 0:19:56.000
<v Speaker 1>these and hoping that they will have value long term

0:19:55.880 --> 0:19:59.960
<v Speaker 1>might end up with something that will have very little

0:20:00.119 --> 0:20:05.280
<v Speaker 1>value when the initial fad sort of faith. People think

0:20:05.480 --> 0:20:10.000
<v Speaker 1>it's like owning and original work of art. So in

0:20:10.080 --> 0:20:15.280
<v Speaker 1>the real world space, if you own an original painting,

0:20:16.520 --> 0:20:19.439
<v Speaker 1>you own that tangible object, even though you don't have

0:20:19.560 --> 0:20:23.040
<v Speaker 1>own the copyright that's associated with it. And if it's

0:20:23.080 --> 0:20:26.960
<v Speaker 1>sufficiently old, the copyright might be in the public domain

0:20:27.000 --> 0:20:30.840
<v Speaker 1>and anyone can make reproductions. If it's newer and it's

0:20:30.880 --> 0:20:33.920
<v Speaker 1>still under copyright, you would have to negotiate with the

0:20:34.000 --> 0:20:36.960
<v Speaker 1>artists or the artists to stay separately to get any

0:20:37.000 --> 0:20:39.760
<v Speaker 1>sort of rights to reproduce the work. But you still

0:20:39.760 --> 0:20:43.960
<v Speaker 1>own something quite valuable by owning a single original, and

0:20:44.200 --> 0:20:48.600
<v Speaker 1>the idea behind n f t S was to provide

0:20:48.680 --> 0:20:53.640
<v Speaker 1>something unique that would have scarcity and that would therefore

0:20:53.720 --> 0:20:59.639
<v Speaker 1>have similar value to owning an original copy of a

0:20:59.720 --> 0:21:03.119
<v Speaker 1>piece of art. Right, you know, the the original that

0:21:03.960 --> 0:21:06.080
<v Speaker 1>in the real world space, that would be the tangible

0:21:06.119 --> 0:21:09.840
<v Speaker 1>original painting. Here, it would be well, you own the

0:21:09.880 --> 0:21:15.720
<v Speaker 1>original digital version of this digital art. But the problem

0:21:15.800 --> 0:21:18.880
<v Speaker 1>is that n f t S can't guarantee that that's

0:21:18.880 --> 0:21:22.800
<v Speaker 1>what you own, because you know what is the original.

0:21:22.960 --> 0:21:26.080
<v Speaker 1>It resides on a hard disk somewhere. You're not giving

0:21:26.119 --> 0:21:31.840
<v Speaker 1>somebody the hard disk, and it might or might not

0:21:32.080 --> 0:21:35.280
<v Speaker 1>be associated with a particular digital copy at a particular

0:21:35.560 --> 0:21:40.280
<v Speaker 1>digital location. But again, there's no guarantee that that digital

0:21:40.320 --> 0:21:45.120
<v Speaker 1>copy or that server will continue to exist to five

0:21:45.240 --> 0:21:49.080
<v Speaker 1>ten years from now. It's a great explanation. Thanks for

0:21:49.160 --> 0:21:52.600
<v Speaker 1>being on the show, Tyler. That's Professor Tyler o'choa of

0:21:52.680 --> 0:21:56.159
<v Speaker 1>the Santa Clara University School of Law. And that's it

0:21:56.240 --> 0:21:58.800
<v Speaker 1>for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

0:21:58.840 --> 0:22:01.320
<v Speaker 1>can always get the latest lead the news Honor Bloomberg

0:22:01.400 --> 0:22:05.159
<v Speaker 1>Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:22:05.200 --> 0:22:10.200
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

0:22:10.640 --> 0:22:13.240
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:22:13.280 --> 0:22:17.240
<v Speaker 1>week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,

0:22:17.320 --> 0:22:18.919
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg