Web 3.0

Art Market and Trademarks: Navigating Intellectual Property in the Art World

The art market is a sector where intellectual property plays a key role. While copyright remains the primary legal tool for protecting artistic creations, trademark law has become an essential strategy for safeguarding the names, logos, and reputations of artists, galleries, and auction houses.

According to the 2023 annual report of the INPI, 90,874 trademark applications were filed in France that year, highlighting the growing importance of brand protection, including in the art sector.

The challenge is twofold: ensuring the protection of artists’ and galleries’ identities against fraudulent use and guaranteeing the authenticity of artworks. The unauthorized use of well-known artists’ names to sell counterfeit goods is a recurrent issue that threatens the market’s value.

The Role of Trademarks in the Art Market

Trademarks play an essential role in the valorization of artists, galleries, and auction houses. They protect brand identity and market reputation, ensuring recognition and exclusivity.

Trademarks and Art Galleries’ Business Names

Art galleries must register their names and visual identities as trademarks with the INPI in France or the EUIPO for a European trademark. This registration prevents identity theft, commercial parasitism, and disputes over exploitation rights.

Prestigious galleries such as Gagosian Gallery and David Zwirner have established their names as trademarks to secure international recognition and prevent fraudulent use.

Artists’ Trademarks and Personal Branding

Many contemporary artists, including Jeff Koons, Banksy, and Damien Hirst, have registered their names as trademarks to control the commercialization of their works and derivative products, such as posters, miniature sculptures, and NFTs.

A critical legal question arises upon an artist’s death: Who owns the trademarked name, and who can exploit their image commercially? Some artist estates, such as Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s, have attempted to trademark their names to maintain control over posthumous exploitation.

Counterfeiting and Trademark Misuse

The art market faces a growing counterfeiting issue, affecting both artworks and branding elements, such as gallery logos or famous artist names.

Some online platforms and secondary markets exploit gallery and artist names without authorization, selling fake or unauthorized reproductions. Fraudulent NFTs have become a major concern, prompting artists to register their digital signatures and names as trademarks.

Copyright vs. Trademarks: Which Protection for Artworks?

While copyright law primarily governs the protection of artistic works, trademark law can apply in specific cases.

Copyright Protection for Artistic Works

Under French law, copyright automatically protects any original work from its creation, as stated in Article L111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code.

Artists hold moral rights (which are inalienable) and economic rights (which can be transferred). An art gallery must obtain explicit authorization to use or reproduce a copyrighted artwork.

Three-Dimensional Trademarks for Artistic Creations

Some artworks can be registered as three-dimensional trademarks if they are distinctive and not purely functional.

For example, Jeff Koons’ Balloon Dogs have been trademarked to prevent unauthorized reproductions.

Conflicts Between Copyright and Trademarks

Several conflicts arise between copyright and trademark law, including:

  • Can a gallery register an artwork as a trademark without the artist’s consent? No, unless the artist has transferred or licensed their rights. Unauthorized registration could be challenged as an infringement of the artist’s moral and economic rights.
  • Can a brand use an artist’s work without financial compensation? Generally no, unless it falls under an exception such as fair use or public domain. Unauthorized use could lead to legal action for copyright or trademark infringement.
  • When copyright expires (70 years after the artist’s death), can a trademark holder monopolize the work? A trademark cannot grant exclusive rights over a work in the public domain. However, a trademark on a name, logo, or distinctive element related to the artist may still provide some control over commercial use.

Notable Litigation and Case Law

Banksy vs. Full Colour Black, R 1246/2021-5 (2021)

Banksy registered several of his works as trademarks with the EUIPO. However, the company Full Colour Black contested these filings, arguing that Banksy was not using the trademarks for commercial purposes. The EUIPO annulled several of his trademarks, considering his filings an abuse of the system.

Jeff Koons and Copyright Infringement, 960 F.2d 301 (1992)

Jeff Koons has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly copying other artists’ works under the pretense of “transformation.” These cases highlight the tension between artistic appropriation and intellectual property rights.

Christo and Jeanne-Claude: Posthumous Protection

After the deaths of Christo and Jeanne-Claude, their heirs attempted to register their names and works as trademarks to control their commercial exploitation.

NFTs and Emerging Intellectual Property Issues

With the rise of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), trademark protection has taken on a new dimension.

  • Artists register their names and digital signatures as trademarks to prevent fake NFTs.
  • Galleries trademark certification systems to authenticate digital works and avoid identity fraud.
  • Platforms such as OpenSea and Rarible face legal challenges regarding unauthorized NFT sales.

Recommendations for Artists and Galleries

  • Register trademarks to protect artist names and gallery branding.
  • Ensure legal compliance before exhibiting or selling any artwork.
  • Monitor counterfeiting and unauthorized use of artist names and trademarks.
  • Utilize digital tools (blockchain, NFTs) to guarantee authenticity and traceability.

The intersection of art and trademarks presents both opportunities and challenges. While copyright remains the primary protection for artworks, trademark law is becoming increasingly strategic for securing artist and gallery identities.

With the rise of NFTs and digital art, intellectual property strategies must evolve to protect names and artworks from unauthorized exploitation.

Dreyfus Law Firm provides expertise in intellectual property protection for artists and galleries, working with a global network of specialized trademark attorneys.

 

FAQ

1. What is the relationship between art and trademarks?

Art and trademarks often intersect when artists incorporate branded elements into their works or when brands collaborate with artists to create unique products.

2. Can an artist use a trademarked logo in their artwork?

Using a trademarked logo without permission can lead to legal issues, as it may be considered trademark infringement.

3. What is fair use in the context of trademarks?

Fair use allows limited use of trademarked material without permission, typically for purposes like criticism or commentary. However, its application is limited in trademark law.

4. How can artists protect their intellectual property?

Artists can protect their work by registering copyrights, monitoring for unauthorized use, and taking legal action when necessary.

5. What are some examples of successful artist-brand collaborations?

Collaborations like those between Takashi Murakami and Louis Vuitton showcase successful partnerships that blend art and commerce.

Read More

DeepSeek: The Emergence of China’s New AI Powerhouse

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), the emergence of new players can significantly disrupt existing paradigms. One such entrant is DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup that has recently garnered attention for its innovative approaches and competitive performance metrics. As enterprises consider integrating DeepSeek into their operations, it is imperative to understand not only its capabilities but also the legal, data privacy, and intellectual property implications associated with its use.

I – Overview of DeepSeek

A – Development and Release

DeepSeek, officially known as Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd., unveiled its open-source R1 model on January 27, 2025. This release sent ripples through the U.S. technology sector, particularly as reports highlighted that DeepSeek achieved performance levels comparable to established models like OpenAI’s o1-mini, but at approximately 5% of the development cost. This development challenges the prevailing notion that advancing large language models (LLMs) necessitates substantial capital and computational resources.

B – Key Features and Performance

DeepSeek’s R1 model is designed to handle a variety of complex tasks with notable efficiency. Its open-source nature allows users to download and run the model locally, eliminating the need for data storage on cloud platforms controlled by DeepSeek. This flexibility has attracted a surge of AI developers exploring DeepSeek as a viable alternative to existing models.

II – Legal Considerations for Enterprise Users

A – Data Ownership and Usage Rights

Enterprises must exercise caution when utilizing DeepSeek’s online platforms, such as its iOS, Android, or web chatbot interfaces. DeepSeek’s privacy policy grants the company broad rights to exploit user data collected through prompts or from user devices. This includes monitoring interactions, analyzing usage patterns, and using data to train and improve their technology. Additionally, DeepSeek reserves the right to share collected information with advertising and analytics partners, as well as third parties in connection with corporate transactions.

B – Compliance with International Trade Laws

The storage of all personal data on servers located in China introduces complexities concerning international trade laws that restrict or prohibit data transfers to certain foreign countries, including China. Companies should thoroughly review DeepSeek’s privacy terms to ensure compliance with their internal data security policies and external commitments to customers.

III – Data Privacy and Security Concerns

A – Data Storage and Transfer

DeepSeek’s practice of storing user data on servers within the People’s Republic of China (PRC) raises significant data privacy concerns. The PRC’s regulatory environment differs markedly from frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States. Users should be aware that their data may be subject to local laws that permit government access without the stringent safeguards found in other jurisdictions.

B – Potential Risks for Enterprises

For enterprises handling sensitive or proprietary information, using DeepSeek’s online platforms could pose confidentiality risks. The broad data usage rights claimed by DeepSeek may conflict with an organization’s obligations to protect client data or trade secrets. It is crucial for companies to assess these risks and consider whether running a local instance of DeepSeek’s model, thereby retaining full control over their data, is a more suitable option.

IV – Intellectual Property Challenges

A – Allegations of Unauthorized Use

Recent reports indicate that OpenAI has accused DeepSeek of unlawfully using its AI models, raising significant legal and ethical concerns. OpenAI asserts that there is evidence suggesting DeepSeek illicitly utilized its models to enhance its own AI systems.

B – Implications for AI Development

These allegations, if substantiated, could have profound implications for the AI industry, particularly concerning the protection of intellectual property and the ethical development of AI technologies. Enterprises should monitor these developments closely, as they may impact the legal landscape surrounding AI tool usage and development.

V – DeepSeek AI: Privacy Concerns and Regulatory Actions in Europe

Unlike other AI models, DeepSeek is open-source and entirely free. However, its use raises significant concerns regarding data privacy, particularly in terms of compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

European data protection authorities have expressed concerns about DeepSeek’s data collection and processing practices. For instance, the Luxembourg National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD) has warned about the risks associated with using DeepSeek, emphasizing that user input may be recorded, transferred, stored, or analyzed without a clear data protection framework. The absence of a DeepSeek representative in the European Union complicates GDPR enforcement and makes it difficult for EU citizens to exercise their data rights.

In response, some regulatory authorities have taken concrete action. The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante) ordered the blocking of the DeepSeek application in Italy after the company failed to provide requested information regarding its privacy policy and data processing practices.

These measures highlight the challenges posed by the rapid emergence of AI models like DeepSeek, particularly regarding compliance with European data protection regulations. European authorities continue to monitor these developments closely to ensure user data security and privacy.

Conclusion

DeepSeek represents a significant advancement in the AI field, offering promising capabilities that could benefit various enterprise applications. However, organizations must carefully weigh these advantages against the potential legal, data privacy, and intellectual property risks associated with its use. Conducting thorough due diligence and consulting with legal experts in data protection and intellectual property law is essential before integrating DeepSeek into business operations.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to provide tailored legal solutions in the evolving field of AI and copyright.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1 – What is the link between artificial intelligence and personal data?

Artificial intelligence (AI) relies on processing and analyzing large datasets to learn, identify patterns, and make predictions. When AI processes information that can identify an individual (such as names, addresses, browsing history, biometric data, etc.), this data is considered personal and is subject to strict regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe.

2 – How does artificial intelligence process data?

AI systems process data through machine learning and deep learning algorithms. These models are trained on large amounts of data to recognize patterns and improve predictions. The processing includes: • Collecting and storing data • Cleaning and structuring information • Analyzing trends and modeling predictions • Making automated decisions based on the analysis To comply with regulations, data must be used transparently, minimized, and secured.

3 – What is the legal framework for AI?

AI is regulated by multiple legal frameworks at both national and international levels. In Europe, it is primarily governed by: • The GDPR, which imposes strict obligations on the collection, processing, and storage of personal data. • The proposed EU AI Act, which aims to classify AI systems based on their risk level and impose specific obligations on developers and users. • Other sector-specific regulations, such as those related to consumer protection, cybersecurity, and liability for errors or damages caused by AI.

4 – Does AI collect your personal information?

AI can process personal information if it is designed to analyze user data (e.g., facial recognition, personalized recommendations, virtual assistants). However, companies and organizations using AI technologies must comply with principles of transparency, data minimization, and user consent. Responsible AI systems should integrate data protection mechanisms such as anonymization, encryption, and access control to prevent misuse or non-compliant processing.

5 – Does the GDPR apply to AI?

Yes, the GDPR applies to any AI system that processes personal data, regardless of the technology used. Key obligations include: • Obtaining explicit user consent for data collection and usage. • Complying with the principle of data minimization, meaning only collecting data that is strictly necessary. • Implementing security measures to protect data processed by AI. • Ensuring the right to explanation, allowing individuals to obtain information about automated decision-making processes. • Granting individuals the right to erasure of their personal data upon request. Any organization using AI must ensure that its systems comply with GDPR requirements and other applicable regulations.

Read More

Blockchain Technology: A Revolution in Legal Evidence?

In the field of intellectual property law, the matter of evidence is crucial. Traditionally, electronic timestamping offered a solution. However, these methods remain limited by national frameworks. Conversely, blockchain is a global, reliable, accessible alternative that could become a prominent international standard.

 

How Blockchain Evidence Works

Blockchain is a decentralized technology characterized by transparency and security. Unlike centralized systems, it operates without a single control authority. Each transaction is recorded in a shared ledger, creating a chain of tamper-proof information. Public blockchains are accessible to all, similar to an indestructible public ledger, while private blockchains restrict access. This structure ensures data remains immutable and unalterable.

The system’s security is maintained by miners, who validate transactions by solving complex calculations in exchange for rewards, ensuring the integrity of the information.

 

How to Use Blockchain for Proof

  1. Create a Hash: The document is converted into a unique string of numbers and letters (a hash).
  2. Record on the Blockchain: The hash is registered in the blockchain through a minor financial transaction, making it permanent.
  3. Verification: To prove authenticity, simply compare the current document’s hash with the one on the blockchain. A match confirms its authenticity.

 

Traditional Solutions vs. Blockchain

Traditional evidence solutions, although effective, are often limited to national jurisdictions, posing obstacles internationally. Procedures like notary records or the Soleau envelope do not offer universal protection. Blockchain, however, being open source, offers universal timestamping based on mathematical rules, lowering entry barriers and providing an immutable and traceable proof system.

 

Various Use Cases

  • Creation Protection:
    • Ongoing Protection: Blockchain timestamps each version of a creation (e.g., fashion, jewelry), providing continuous coverage, even for unfinished works.
    • Pre-Patent Protection: During R&D phases, blockchain proves the existence of unpatented inventions, avoiding the need for immediate patent filing.
    • Contributor Traceability: In collaborative projects, blockchain identifies each contribution, reducing authorship disputes.
  • Electronic Signatures: Introduced in France in 2000 and standardized in the EU by the eIDAS Regulation, electronic signatures now include three types: simple, advanced, and qualified. Blockchain is increasingly used in this area to ensure integrity and authenticity, meeting the criteria for simple and advanced signatures. With the implementation of eIDAS 2 in 2024, blockchain could be integrated into qualified electronic signature systems.

 

Current Limitations and Future Prospects

In France, the legal recognition of blockchain evidence is mainly limited to the financial sector. For example, Ordinance No. 2016-520 authorized blockchains to record and transfer unlisted financial assets, like minibonds. Ordinance No. 2017-1674 and Decree No. 2018-1226 further extended their use of shared electronic financial security records. The PACTE Law of 2019 strengthened this by authorizing the recording and circulation of financial assets on the blockchain, including stocks and bonds.

At the European level, Regulation 910/2014/EU, effective since July 1, 2016, validates electronic signatures and timestamps, implicitly including blockchain, as admissible evidence in court, granting them similar legal value to handwritten signatures.

French law relies on a mixed system of evidence: the principle of freedom of evidence with exceptions for legal proof, mainly applied to legal acts. Perfect proof includes written documents (authentic or private), judicial admissions, decisive oaths, and reliable copies. Imperfect proofs, such as blockchain, are subject to the judge’s discretion and do not have predefined probative value by law.

Therefore, it is advisable to use a bailiff’s report. While verifying a digital fingerprint in the blockchain is technically simple and achievable via open-source tools, the judge cannot perform this manipulation. A bailiff, acting as a judicial officer, provides this report, offering technical proof to the judge and facilitating the use of blockchain evidence in legal proceedings.

 

Conclusion

Although blockchain is still considered imperfect proof under French law, its recognition is growing. It could soon become a global standard, surpassing traditional methods. Blockchain is redefining the framework of evidence in intellectual property, offering a solution adapted to the challenges of an international market.

Dreyfus Law Firm offers expert guidance at every stage of creation protection. Our mastery of legal subtleties and global market experience ensures optimal, tailored protection for your specific needs.

 

Dreyfus Law Firm works in close collaboration with a global network of specialized intellectual property lawyers.

Join us on social media!

Instagram

LinkedIn

Read More