The creators of the Bored Ape non-fungible token collection – one of the most famous and highly regarded sets of digital art – sued an artist in federal court, alleging that he “trolled” them and “cheated consumers” by making and selling copy bits.
Bored Ape Yacht Club producer is suing artist Ryder Ripps for NFTs
“These are not just monkey shops,” the case said. “It is a deliberate attempt to harm Yuga Labs at the expense of consumers by creating confusion as to whether these RR / BAYC NFTs are in any way sponsored, affiliated with or connected to Yuga Labs official Bored Ape Yacht Club.”
The value of the 10,000 unique and colorful monkey NFTs created by Yuga Labs lies not only in their rarity, the suit said, but also in their benefits. These include joining an “exclusive community” of Bored Monkey owners, who access online channels, as well as parties and events, after purchasing one of the NFTs.
An Ape Fest was held last week at New York City’s Pier 17, with shows by LCD Soundsystem, Haim, Future and Eminem. Owners of a cartoon monkey were issued a QR code that allowed entry to the event.
The class of Bored Monkey owners includes comedian Jimmy Fallon – who announced his entry into space by tweeting “Permission to get bored?” – and rapper Snoop Dogg (“When I APE in I APE all the way in !!”). DJ Steve Aoki has at least eight of the digital primates, according to his Twitter account.
The value of Bored Ape NFTs has fallen in recent months, from a peak cryptocurrency price of 153.54 ether on May 1 – about $ 430,000 at the time – to 87.13 ether on Tuesday, or nearly 100,000 dollars. The lawsuit blamed Ripps for the decline, which he said “and others who acted in conjunction with him have highlighted and cheered.”
Ripps said in an email that the lawsuit “grossly misjudges the RR / BAYC project”, which he called a “protest against and parody of” the Bored Ape Yacht Club collection.
“No one was under the impression that RR / BAYC NFTs were replacements for BAYC NFTs or would give them access to Yuga’s club,” he said.
The lawsuit is a spillover from the high-flying world of NFTs, blockchains and cryptocurrencies – which many technological innovators have considered the future of the Internet – to the federal justice system. Such innovations have been developed, at least in part, to remove the involvement of traditional frameworks such as legal systems, real estate agencies and central banks from a wide range of transactions.
The suit also comes during a turbulent time for crypto, with prices fluctuating wildly, so-called stack coins becoming unstable and regulators turning their attention to the industry.
“For the American legal system, you should not need it. That’s the whole point of crypto – you do not need the government to intervene, “said an investor in Yuga Labs, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive business matters.
“This is the most high-profile NFT product in the world,” the person said. “That they are dealing with copyright infringement is not surprising.”
Legal experts told The Washington Post that Ripp’s parody defense is likely to fall flat.
Ripps “missed the parody mark in my opinion,” said Steve Vondran, a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property and technology matters. He noted that it is more difficult to seek protection for parody under fair use laws if “it appears that they are seeking to financially exploit the creative efforts of others”.
The RR / BAYC NFTs were no longer available on the Open Sea, a popular NFT marketplace, early Wednesday. “This content is no longer available on OpenSea. It has been removed based on an allegation of copyright infringement, the website said.
Vondran added that if satire were to be claimed as a defense, it would have far fewer protections. (A re-creation of the work in question can be claimed as a parody, while satire uses the work to comment on something else.) In any case, he said, “at best I think that’s what you have here, a very weak version of satire.”
Marta Belcher, a former intellectual property lawyer who now specializes in cryptocurrency litigation, said the case was an obvious trademark issue: The purpose of trademark laws, she said, is to protect consumers by making sure they know a product is actually coming from a particular brand.
She added that such laws also protect brand owners against “dilution – that people can know that their product is associated with a high quality standard.”
Belcher said the case was similar a Nike trademark lawsuit in 2021 against a company that sells “Satan Shoes” – recycled Nike sneakers that were allegedly injected with human blood. The parties reconciled a few months after the lawsuit was filed.
