In copyright enforcement on digital collectibles (NFT, i.e., non-fungible token certificates based on blockchain) platforms, the first step is not to send a lawyer's letter, but to confirm in what capacity you are asserting rights. This article proceeds in five steps: determining capacity, layered evidence preservation, comparison of three paths, cost and enforcement expectations, and actions you can take right now, and explains what each step cannot resolve.
Before rushing to send a lawyer's letter, first confirm in what capacity you are enforcing your rights
The question clients ask most often is: I saw someone on a digital collectibles platform mint my image into a collectible and sell it, what should I do. Many people's first reaction is to find a lawyer to send a letter, or to complain directly to the platform's customer service. But what truly determines whether this can be done and how far it can go are three preliminary questions: what capacity you hold in this work, whether the materials in your hands can prove that capacity, and who the infringing party is and whether they can be found. If these three questions are not clarified, all subsequent actions may be wasted effort.
Infringement on digital collectibles platforms typically manifests as unauthorized reproduction, uploading, minting, or issuance of another person's work, or falsely issuing another person's work as an original under one's own name. But the phrase "being infringed" means completely different things to different people. The original copyright owner, the exclusive or sole licensee, the ordinary licensee, and the mere holder who bought a collectible and resold it—these four types of capacity differ greatly in the scope of rights they can assert, whether they can serve as plaintiff, and what they can demand.
The original copyright owner is the most complete category and may assert cessation of infringement, elimination of effects, apology, and compensation for losses. An exclusive or sole licensee, within the scope of authorization, can usually also enforce rights in its own name, but this depends on how the license contract is written. An ordinary licensee generally can only assert rights through the licensor, and direct litigation by itself is likely to be blocked at the subject-qualification stage. As for a buyer who merely holds a certain collectible, unless the contract provides otherwise, such a buyer generally cannot obtain copyright-level claims, and what can be asserted is often a matter at the contract or platform-rules level.
There is another layer that is easily overlooked: the platform user agreement. Many platforms include provisions on intellectual property ownership, scope of authorization, complaint and takedown mechanisms, and limitations of liability in their agreements. The checkbox you clicked when registering may already have changed the boundaries of what you can assert. So the first step is not to find a lawyer, but to gather three things: your proof of title, the agreement between you and the platform, and a complete record of the infringing page.
If proceedings are initiated without clarity on capacity, the most common consequence is rejection at the subject-qualification stage, or being forced to change the plaintiff midway, wasting both time and money. The determination at this step should preferably be completed before formal action, because it determines the choice of all subsequent paths.
There is also a detail that is easily overlooked: the same work may simultaneously have multiple rights holders. For example, you co-created it with collaborators, or you previously transferred part of the rights to an institution, or you checked default authorization terms when publishing on a platform early on. These historical actions all affect the scope you can assert today. So when confirming capacity, do not only look at "did I draw this image," but also at "have the rights in this image been disposed of or shared by me." Tracing the chain of rights from beginning to end is far more useful than rushing to send a letter.
Evidence preservation is not just screenshots; it must be fixed in layers according to the purpose of proof
Many people think taking a few screenshots counts as evidence preservation. Screenshots can prove "I saw it," but cannot prove "when it existed," "who this page belongs to," or "whose work this is." In the digital collectibles context, evidence preservation must be divided into at least three layers, each addressing a different issue.
The first layer is fixing the facts of infringement: the infringing page, minting records, transaction records, publication time, collectible number, price, and sales volume. This layer addresses "the infringement did indeed occur, when it occurred, and how large its scale was." Digital collectibles pages may be deleted or modified at any time, so this layer should be done as soon as possible, preferably on the day of discovery.
The second layer is proof of title: creation drafts, first publication records, copyright registration certificates, and authorization chain documents. This layer addresses "on what basis do you say this is yours." In the digital collectibles context, many creators have not obtained copyright registration, so this must be supplemented by records of the creation process, publication timestamps, and records from early publishing platforms. Authorization chain documents are especially important: if you are not the original copyright owner, every link of authorization from the original rights holder to you must be connected.
The third layer consists of evidence of loss and profit: sales volume, price, platform revenue-sharing rules, and the infringer's promotional materials. This layer addresses the question of 'how much should be paid in damages.' In the digital collectibles context, both the rights holder's actual loss and the infringer's actual profit are difficult to calculate precisely; evidence at this layer is therefore more about providing a discretionary basis for the subsequent damages claim.
As for evidence-collection methods, timestamps, blockchain evidence preservation, and notarization each have their applicable scenarios. Timestamps and blockchain evidence preservation are low-cost and fast, making them suitable for fixing a webpage at the earliest opportunity; notarization generally carries more stable probative force in litigation, but it is costly and slow. The three are not substitutes for one another; a common approach is to first fix the evidence by low-cost means and then notarize the key pages. It should be noted that evidence preservation only establishes 'what content existed at a certain point in time'; it does not establish 'who you are and what rights you enjoy'—the latter depends on the second layer of materials.
The two things most easily overlooked during evidence collection are: the infringer's entity information, and the duration of the infringement. The former determines whether you can identify the defendant; the latter affects the calculation of damages. The operating entity's name, filing information, and uploader's nickname displayed on the platform page must all be recorded together.
There is one further practical reminder: when collecting evidence, pay attention to the completeness of the page. Capturing only the image of the collectible itself is insufficient; the page URL, account information, publication time, transaction button, and price display must be captured together, and it is best to use screen recording to document the complete path from entering the platform to locating the infringing collectible. The purpose of doing so is to enable the evidence to establish its own source, rather than leaving the other party room to question 'whether you made this image yourself.'
Platform complaints, administrative complaints, and civil litigation: what each of the three paths addresses
The three paths are not a choice of one among three; rather, each addresses a different problem. They may proceed in parallel, but the order and pace will affect the outcome.
Platform complaints are the fastest path. By submitting proof of rights and the infringing links in accordance with platform rules, the platform will usually first delist or freeze the relevant collectibles. Its value lies in stopping the harm quickly, and it is especially suitable where the infringing content is still being disseminated and sales are still growing. However, platform complaints do not resolve compensation, nor will a platform, merely because it has delisted content, admit that it or the uploader has committed infringement. Moreover, platform complaints depend heavily on platform rules, and response times and handling standards vary greatly across platforms.
Administrative complaints involve reporting to copyright or market regulation authorities. Their main function is to exert pressure and stop the conduct; their help with purely civil compensation is limited. They are suitable where the scale of infringement is relatively large, the conduct is widespread, or the platform itself is uncooperative. However, acceptance standards and the scope of application for administrative complaints are not entirely consistent across localities, and one should not expect them to directly secure compensation.
Civil litigation is the only path that can determine liability and damages. It can simultaneously seek cessation of infringement and compensation for losses, and a judgment is enforceable. However, it is time-consuming and costly, and enforcement carries uncertainty. The two most critical questions in litigation are: whom to sue, and how much should be paid. Whom to sue depends on whether you can obtain the infringer's entity information; how much should be paid depends on whether you can prove loss or profit, or persuade the court to exercise its discretion.
Distinguishing platform liability from uploader liability is one of the core issues in dispute in this type of case. The 'notice-and-takedown' rule generally applies to platforms: after a rights holder issues a qualifying notice, if the platform fails to act promptly, it may be liable for the expanded loss; however, if the platform can prove that it neither knew nor should have known of the infringement, its liability will be considerably lighter. The uploader is the direct infringer, and liability is more direct, but the uploader is often harder to locate and harder to pursue in enforcement. Therefore, a common strategy in practice is: list both the platform and the uploader as defendants, or first sue the platform and obtain the uploader's information through litigation procedures.
The three paths may proceed in parallel, but attention must be paid to pacing. Platform complaints and administrative complaints can be initiated immediately; civil litigation is best initiated after the ownership of rights and entity information are basically clear, so as to avoid dismissal due to issues concerning the qualifications of the party.
Where the money is spent, how much can be recovered, and where enforcement is difficult
Costs mainly consist of several components: notarization fees, evidence-preservation fees, attorney fees, and litigation fees; if identity comparison of works is involved, there may also be appraisal fees. Notarization and evidence preservation are expenditures for securing evidence at an early stage, and the amount depends on the quantity and method of evidence collection; attorney fees depend on the complexity of the case and whether a contingency fee arrangement is used; litigation fees are calculated based on the amount in dispute, and the higher the amount, the higher the fees. These costs should be roughly estimated before initiation to avoid being forced to abandon the case midway due to cost issues.
Damages calculation is the most uncertain part of such cases. Legally, damages are usually determined in the order of actual loss, infringer's profits, multiples of licensing fees, and statutory damages, but in digital collectibles scenarios, the first three are all difficult to prove. The right holder's actual loss is difficult to quantify, and the infringer's actual profits are in the other party's hands, so in practice a large number of cases ultimately rely on the court's discretion. The amount of discretionary damages is related to the circumstances of infringement, the fame of the work, the scale of infringement, and the subjective state of the infringer, and varies greatly from case to case.
Do not form absolute expectations about the amount of damages. In some cases, the damages awarded can cover the costs of enforcement; in others, the damages awarded are far lower than the expenditures. This is not legal unfairness, but the realistic result of evidentiary difficulty and the scope of judicial discretion. Before initiation, one should be mentally prepared for "how much can be recovered in the worst-case scenario."
Enforcement is another aspect that is easily underestimated. Obtaining a judgment does not mean the money is in hand. If the defendant is an individual uploader, there may be no enforceable property; if the defendant is the platform operator, enforcement is usually more feasible. Therefore, in litigation strategy, whether to list the platform as a defendant affects not only the allocation of liability but also the possibility of subsequent enforcement.
It should be noted that the above are judgments based on general legal principles and common industry understanding. The damages expectations and enforcement difficulty in a specific case need to be further verified in light of the infringement facts, the evidentiary situation, and the defendant's property status.
In addition, the cost of enforcement is not only money. Time costs must also be considered: platform complaints may take days to weeks, administrative complaints may take weeks to months, and first-instance civil litigation usually takes several months or even longer. If the infringing content is still being disseminated, the longer the delay, the greater the loss may be. Therefore, when deciding which path to take, time costs should also be included in the consideration, rather than calculating only the economic account.
Three things that can be done now, and three things that must wait for a lawyer's involvement
The first thing that can be done now: immediately secure the infringing pages and transaction records. Use timestamps or blockchain evidence preservation to secure all pages, minting records, transaction records, publication times, sale prices, and sales volumes as quickly as possible, because pages may be deleted or modified at any time.
The second thing that can be done now: organize the chain of ownership evidence. Find all creation drafts, first publication records, copyright registration certificates, and authorization contracts, and confirm that you have the right to assert claims and whether the authorization chain from the original right holder to you is complete. This step does not require a lawyer, but it requires you to have a clear understanding of the source of your rights.
The third thing that can be done now: issue a compliant notice in accordance with platform rules and initiate takedown. Platforms usually have dedicated intellectual property complaint channels; submit ownership proof and infringing links as required. This step can stop the loss fastest, but it does not resolve compensation and does not mean the platform admits liability.
The first thing that must wait for a lawyer's involvement: determination of subject qualification. In what capacity you are suing, whether you can be the plaintiff yourself, and whether other right holders need to be joined are judgments that, if made incorrectly, will make everything that follows futile.
The second thing that must wait for a lawyer's involvement: choice of litigation strategy. Whom to sue, how many to sue, whether to sue the platform first or the uploader first, and whether to apply to the court to obtain the uploader's real-name information—these choices affect the direction and cost of the case.
The third matter that must await the involvement of a lawyer: the design of the compensation claim and the application for evidence production. How to assert the amount of compensation, which evidence to apply to the court to obtain, and whether to apply for evidence preservation all require professional judgment.
Finally, it must be made clear what this article cannot do: it cannot guarantee that the platform will necessarily take the content down, cannot guarantee the amount of compensation, and cannot guarantee that a judgment can be enforced in full. Safeguarding rights is a process with costs, a timeline, and uncertainty; what can be done is to make the basis for judgment and the preparation of materials at each step solid, and to keep uncertainty within a predictable range.
If, after reading this article, you can remember only one sentence, let it be this: first confirm your identity, then secure the evidence, and finally choose the path. If the order is wrong, the efforts that follow may well be wasted.
Verification checklist
- Confirm your identity in relation to the work: original copyright owner, exclusive or sole licensee, ordinary licensee, or mere holder
- Obtain and read the clauses in the platform's user agreement concerning ownership of intellectual property, the scope of authorization, and the complaint mechanism
- Promptly secure the infringing page, minting records, transaction records, publication time, sale price, and sales volume using timestamps or blockchain evidence preservation
- Organize the chain of ownership evidence: drafts of the creation, records of first publication, copyright registration certificates, and licensing contracts
- Record the identifying information of the infringing party: the name of the platform operator, filing information, and the uploader's nickname
- Submit a compliant notice in accordance with the platform's rules to initiate takedown
- Assess whether to simultaneously initiate an administrative complaint
- Decide whether to initiate civil litigation only after the subject qualification and the evidence are basically clear
- Set realistic expectations regarding the amount of compensation and the difficulty of enforcement, and avoid absolute conclusions.
