Discussing Yuga Labs vs. Ryder Ripps — Ohnahji U Syllabus for October 28, 2023

🎼 “Breakin’ rocks in the hot sun / I needed money ’cause I had none / Robbin’ people with a six-gun / Guess my race is run / I fought the law and the law won / I fought the law and the law won” 🎵

Hey everyone, Janine here! Dean BOSS let me welcome y’all today!

As a Communications major at Ohnahji University, I’m always taking notes during our discussions to share the important points with y’all! Get comfortable and be ready to take some notes as we dive into a recent debate around art, technology, and ownership sparked by a high-profile NFT lawsuit. Alphites unite! 🎓

This space was live on 10/28/23 at 10 AM PST and hosted by Ohnahji U Chancellor ⁠Ohnahji B⁠, and cohosted by EyeSeeThru & BOSS2.0. A court ruling between Yuga Labs and artist Ryder Ripps over Bored Ape Yacht Club IP has sparked NFT community discussion. Let's dive into the case and its implications.

YUGA LABS VS. RIPPS, et al.

On October 24th, a California court ruled in favor of Yuga Labs in their lawsuit against artist Ryder Ripps and other listed defendants over his creation and sale of the RR/BAYC NFT collection. Ripps had created NFTs that contained links to Bored Ape Yacht Club IPFS image files as a protest against Yuga. However, Yuga argued this infringed on their intellectual property rights and sued Ripps.

Attorney, Alphite, and entrepreneur Jay Frank joined the stage to add legal context to the case discussion. He posited that Ripps tried to claim his NFT project was an expressive work protected under the First Amendment, making a political statement about Yuga Labs. However, the court found this defense insufficient because the project was too directly connected and derivative of Yuga's original Bored Ape Yacht Club work, rather than being sufficiently transformative.

“He essentially tried to create an entirely new work that was built on the backs of Yuga Labs but also claimed that he could use it fairly since it was the target of criticism. Obviously, that didn’t work.”

The court rejected Ripps’ claims of fair use protections for parody/criticism, ultimately ordering Ripps to pay $1.5 million in damages. Ohnahji B called it “a landslide victory for Yuga,” ending much of the speculation throughout the space on a case that’s sure to be referenced for many years ahead.

THE COURT VS. CONCEPTUAL ART

Should the RR/BAYC project be considered protected conceptual art or parody? An exchange between Speaker Diamond and ONJU Dean BOSS points out two sides of the argument.

Diamond believes Ripps should be considered a conceptual artist based on his portfolio. His NFT project was a form of conceptual art, making a statement about Yuga Labs. She also voiced concern about the court stripping him of his recognition as a conceptual artist., saying, “If the legal system was able to invalidate him as an artist, that to me is just making an example out of an artist that you don’t like them expressing their position behind their art.”

In contrast, BOSS pointed out a section from the court documents that listed Ripps’ conduct during litigation as “obstructive and evasive” and that they made slanderous statements. This reflects poorly on their motives, which undermined the conceptual art claim.

“I feel like if an artist was coming into this from a conceptual point saying ‘this is what I wanna talk about,’ I don’t think they would be evasive in their trial testimony or with what they’re saying. We’ve seen this happen in the recent past, where judges and courts come down more harshly on defendants from how they act both inside and outside the courtroom. That does not negate them being a conceptual artist, but I do think that it does inform how the court perceives the intention behind their work.”

Diamond stated that it's understandable to be evasive when dealing with legal systems. Since anything you say can be used against you, it's natural for defendants to be cautious when pleading their case. BOSS countered that being calm and presenting a reasonable purpose from an innocent place would be more acceptable than being hostile. This is especially important in a courtroom where hostility can be perceived negatively.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS

Circling back to the ruling, the discussion moved into how it could impact other NFT projects, minority creators, and the need for more diverse voices in setting legal precedents. Some see it as helpful in clarifying issues like intellectual property rights, while others are concerned it reinforces power imbalances.

On Impacting Other NFT Projects

Speaker Miyagi worries the ruling could limit what NFT holders can do with duplicates in a collection and felt Yuga focused too much on “silencing” Ripps rather than progressing their project.

Diamond’s concern is not with Ripps in particular, but with Yuga's lack of support for diversity and inclusion. The ruling could also lead to larger NFT projects controlling the narrative, dictating what is considered art, and creating obstacles for smaller projects led by minority groups. If Ripps had not profited from his project and had just given the NFTs away for free, there would have been no lawsuit. She says this is still just a “slap on the wrist,” given Ripps’ existing wealth.

On Intellectual Property & Legal Preparedness

Ohnahji B questions what Yuga has done wrong by protecting its brand from perceived defamation. He feels the ruling reinforces IP rights and prevents unauthorized use that could damage a project’s brand. He sees the case as helping clarify IP rights for NFT projects.

After sharing that Ohnahji was created as a form of protest against the lack of black and brown representation in the NFT space, B made it clear that he would not approach protests in the same way as Ripps. He believes effective protests require smart tactics and an understanding of the potential consequences. The defendants in the court case lacked knowledge of courtroom conduct, which demonstrated that they did not take the case seriously. As a result, the ruling went against them.

On Protecting Creators

Jay Frank returned to point out the social implications and how minority creators can protect their work, stating:

“We are the African Americans and the people of color who must maintain our outright ability to hold America and other systems of modern states accountable, and we cannot do that by skirting the law. If it looks like that, then it is a possibility that we will be attacked. So we will constantly have to be fluid in our messaging as well as creative in our approach. I think this is the legal and the creative coming together to hold the big corporations accountable.”

As the space began to go long, EyeSeeThru returned the conversation to its original point — the case was about specific IP issues, not the social issues being discussed. The case reinforced IP rights, which apply to any artist. The social discussions, while valid, went beyond the scope of the case.

This in-depth discussion highlighted the complex debates surrounding technology, art, and the law. While the court ultimately sided with Yuga on the specific IP issues, the broader implications are still evolving as our understanding of digital ownership continues to take shape.

Keep up with this rapidly changing landscape through Ohnahji University and learn more about emerging tech like blockchain, NFTs, and AI.

Find us at OhnahjiU.com 🎓