Miramax, LLC — the film studio — is suing famed cinéaste Quentin Tarantino over Pulp Fiction non-fungible tokens. The legal showdown is shaping up to be a frontier rights case on the NFT landscape, so let’s take a look.
Miramax v. Tarantino: The Situational Facts
In early November, Quentin Tarantino attended the NFT.NYC conference and announced plans to mint NFTs of his original Pulp Fiction screenplay. According to him, each collectible will be augmented with audio “secrets” about the film and his creative process, and Tarantino is using his original hand-written scripts — including deleted scenes — for the project. As of now, an auction date has yet to be set.
One half of each NFT will be private and the other half public. According to the plan, token buyers will be free to keep the content to themselves or “shar[e] the secrets publicly with the world.”
Miramax, as you may have already guessed, isn’t happy. The studio believes Tarantino cannot lawfully launch the collection since he signed a copyright contract in 1993, giving Miramax considerable intellectual property ownership over “Pulp Fiction.” However, the same contract also reserves a few rights for Tarantino, including “print publication (including without limitation screenplay publication, ‘making of’ books, comic books and novelization, in audio and electronic formats as well, as applicable).”
Miramax’s lawsuit reads in part:
“Tarantino’s conduct has forced Miramax to bring this lawsuit against a valued collaborator in order to enforce, preserve, and protect its contractual and intellectual property rights relating to one of Miramax’s most iconic and valuable film properties.”
Miramax v. Tarantino: Miramax’s Argument
Miramax is making several arguments.
- Unfair Exclusion: The film studio argues that Tarantino’s NFT offering prevents Miramax from doing one of its own.
- Trademark Infringement: Miramax claims that consumers will be “confused” about the source of the Pulp Fiction NFTs and erroneously assume it’s a Miramax endeavor.
- Copyright Infringement: Miramax believes Tarantino is violating his1993 contract because the NFT collection doesn’t fall into the small set of reserved rights that Tarantino retained, the most notable being the right of publication.
- One-Time Transaction /= Publication: Miramax insists that “a one-time transaction…does not constitute publication,” and therefore, the NFT collection falls outside of Tarantino’s rights.
Miramax v. Tarantino: Tarantino’s Argument
Tarantino’s legal team is rightfully confident in its client’s argument. Bryan Freedman, one of the filmmaker’s lawyers, bluntly explained:
“Miramax is wrong — plain and simple. Quentin Tarantino’s contract is clear: he has the right to sell NFTs of his hand-written script for Pulp Fiction.”
We understand Freedman’s confidence because Miramax’s arguments aren’t strong. Let’s break it down.
- Unfair Exclusion: In a word: No. Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” NFT collection doesn’t prevent Miramax from creating one with its intellectual property from the film.
- Trademark Infringement: Since the Supreme Court has already ruled that trademark confusion cannot be rooted in “communicative products” — like an image — Miramax’s argument falls on the weak side of the legal scale. Plus, the filmmaker has branded the collection as “Tarantino’s NFTs” since day one. Besides, outside of back-office studio executives, the chances of someone associating “Pulp Fiction” with Miramax above Tarantino are between slim and none.
- Copyright Infringement: The key is that Tarantino retained “reserved rights” in the 1993 contract, including the right of “print publication.” By all established legal precedent, NFTs fall within those defined reserved rights.
- One-Time Transaction /= Publication: Tarantino’s lawyer will likely argue that minting an NFT collection constitutes publication. Moreover, the conferred buyers’ right to share the contents strengthens Tarantino’s position.
Miramax v. Tarantino: The Gravamen
The gravamen of this case is rooted in the “reserved rights” outlined in the 1993 contract and whether minting NFTs constitutes publication. There’s also a possibility that the judge will ponder whether the original script — created before the Miramax deal — falls under the original contractual provisions.
Miramax v. Tarantino: Likely Outcome
Miramax vs. Tarantino may be the first big NFT-related IP lawsuit that goes to trial in the United States. Usually, the parties settle, but this is standard-setting stuff, and both Miramax and Tarantino can afford to test the court’s limits.
Miramax v. Tarantino: The NFT Legal Takeaway
NFTs aren’t a fad. Brands are leveraging them in creative, market-making ways, and the underlying technology is powerful. So from a legal perspective, it’s time to start including them in contracts.
Want to Connect With an NFT Contract Lawyer?
Do you need an NFT contract? Or maybe there’s another NFT legal issue you’d like to run by a blockchain attorney. Whichever the case, let’s talk. The Kelly Law Firm began working in the crypto space years ago, and we know the landscape well.
