Andreessen Horowitz Introduces ‘Can’t Be Evil’ NFT Copyright License

Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) is trying to clean up the messy state of crypto copyright. Last week, the company introduced what it calls “Can’t Be Evil” licenses: a series of agreements that allow creators to grant non-fungible token owners partial or near-full rights to NFT art. It combats a problem many experts have called out—one that persistently undermines claims that NFTs allow you to “own” a work.

The “Can’t Be Evil” licenses (named after a common claim about blockchain companies) are based on the Creative Commons (CC) copyright framework. But unlike Creative Commons, which grants blanket licenses to large swaths of people, a16z’s licenses state the relationship between an NFT buyer and the person who created the original art it’s associated with.

As explained in a blog post, the licenses are intended as a relatively simple but legally sound framework for setting the rights of NFT holders open to changes by individual projects. It’s something many NFT projects – including some massive brands like Bored Ape Yacht Club – fail to do consistently. There are already attempts to create a standardized NFT license, but so far no one has seen the kind of success Creative Commons has in the non-crypto world. And a16z, having invested hugely in the crypto ecosystem, has a vested interest in solving the problem.

The most comprehensive license is a direct copy of the CC0 agreement, which allows anyone to remix or distribute a work of art. Beyond that, there are five other categories. “Exclusive Commercial Rights” gives the buyer an exclusive right to use the art as they see fit. “Non-exclusive commercial rights” do something similar, but the NFT creator retains the right to use the art as well. There is also a version of the non-exclusive commercial license that is revoked if the NFT is used for hate speech – a category that includes defamation, harassment, fraud or “vulgar, cruel, illegal or obscene” use.

Beyond that, there are also two “Personal Use” licenses, which allow people to copy and display art, but not use it commercially. One of these includes the Hate Speech Agreement; the other does not.

The licenses also address the issue of sublicensing: basically, how an NFT holder can authorize other people to use the art on something like a T-shirt or TV show and what happens to that contract if they sell the NFT. These licenses state that the subcontract is terminated immediately upon a sale – so that new buyers do not get an NFT that is already tied up in agreements with other people. (On the other hand, this requires creators who license someone’s NFT to live with some uncertainty about the future.)

The contract also specifies that copyright is only transferred if the NFT is legally sold – so stealing someone’s token doesn’t give you all the rights associated with them.

a16z frames the copyright licenses as a more “plausible” version of NFT ownership, which is correct in a way: it potentially provides more clarity on the token’s legal value rather than relying on handshake agreements and vague promises. But where the slogan “can’t be evil” often implies that there is a technical limit preventing someone from abusing a system, any disputes over these licenses will be resolved through the old-fashioned legal system – an idea that many NFT creators increasingly seem to comfortable with.