NFT lawyer in Paris: what a seller really transfers and what a buyer receives.

The buyer first receives control of a token recorded in a shared register and linked to their wallet. That token most often points to a file, an image, an animation or a piece of music, stored elsewhere. The buyer does not automatically receive the copyright in that file. Article L. 111-3 CPI separates incorporeal ownership of the work from ownership of the physical object, and provides that the acquirer of the object is not vested with any of the rights provided for by the code by the mere fact of acquiring it. The text refers to the physical object; no published decision has been identified that expressly extends this rule to the token, but the logic is the same: exploitation rights pass only through an instrument that assigns or grants them. The buyer therefore has the token, the ability to resell it under the platform's rules, and the uses that the collection licence grants. The firm reads that licence in the version in force on the day of purchase, because it is the licence that fixes personal display, any commercial use and the fate of the rights on resale.

Not necessarily. An assignment of copyright must be evidenced in writing, under Article L. 131-2 CPI. Article L. 131-3 further requires that each right assigned be the subject of a separate mention and that the field of exploitation be delimited as to its scope, purpose, place and duration. A licence published online and drafted in general terms may not meet those conditions; its characterisation and scope are then determined from the terms actually accepted and the rights held by its author. The difficulty lies in the version: a collection's terms are sometimes amended after the sale. The firm therefore looks for the version accepted, the links connecting it to the token and the status of the person who published it. If the issuer did not itself hold the rights, its licence cannot transfer more than it had. A buyer who wants to exploit the image commercially is well advised to obtain a written instrument meeting the formal requirements of the CPI, signed by the rights holder.

No, the sale of the token does not by itself transfer the economic rights. The author enjoys in their work, by the sole fact of its creation, an exclusive incorporeal property right enforceable against all, under Article L. 111-1 CPI. The sale of the token does not carry that right with it, and the moral right remains attached to the author's person, perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible (Article L. 121-1). The opposite risk nevertheless exists where the trial courts find an implied assignment. The First Civil Chamber approved the appeal judgment which, having found that a design company had granted its client an implied assignment of its economic rights, declared it inadmissible in an infringement action, and recalled that "ownership of the economic copyright in creations was a condition for the admissibility of an action for infringement of those rights" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 28 January 2026, No. 24-11.394). That case did not concern an NFT, and the judgment decides standing to sue without defining the conduct that amounts to an assignment. Conversely, the Douai Court of Appeal held that several years of tolerance were not enough to establish a tacit assignment. Allowing a partner to exploit the work without a written instrument nevertheless exposes the artist to this debate. The firm advises the selling artist to publish a precise licence, expressly reserving the rights not granted.

Yes, depending on the contract and the facts. Article 1626 of the Civil Code requires the seller to warrant the acquirer against eviction from all or part of the object sold, even without any stipulation. Article 1628 adds that the seller remains bound by the warranty arising from an act of their own, any contrary agreement being void. The Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation applies this logic to intellectual property rights: "the assignor of rights in a trade mark is bound in the terms of Article 1628 of the Civil Code" (our translation), the warranty ceasing however where the eviction is due to the assignee's fault (Cass. com., 28 February 2024, No. 22-23.833). On this point the ground of appeal was rejected; the Court referred another question to the Court of Justice of the European Union. For an NFT, eviction may take the form of a takedown of the collection demanded by the author, a ban on use or an infringement action. The firm checks whether the seller presented themselves as the rights holder, what they promised and whether the buyer was themselves at fault in using the file.

The route exists, subject to conditions. Article 1132 of the Civil Code makes mistake as to the essential qualities of the performance a ground of nullity, unless it is inexcusable, and Article 1133 provides that acceptance of a risk as to a quality rules out mistake as to that quality. Where attribution to an artist determined the purchase, it may constitute an essential quality. If the seller lied or deliberately concealed information they knew to be decisive, fraudulent misrepresentation under Article 1137 may also be invoked. For a physical work, the Court of Cassation held, under the former law, that "a seller's mistake as to the substantial qualities of the thing sold is a ground of nullity of the contract only to the extent that it is excusable" (our translation), and found it excusable for a seller who had relied on a professional who had not carried out the necessary research (Cass. 1re civ., 4 December 2024, No. 23-17.569). That decision concerns a painting sold at auction; it informs the analysis without settling it for an NFT. Proof rests on the description of the sale, the exchanges and the artist's statement, which should be gathered quickly.

The answer depends on the status of the seller and the nature of the contract. The fourteen-day right of withdrawal under Article L. 221-18 of the Consumer Code (Code de la consommation) protects a consumer who contracts with a professional at a distance or away from business premises; Article L. 221-3 extends it only to the small business that concludes, away from business premises, a contract outside its main activity. Between private individuals, it does not apply. Against a professional, Article L. 221-28 provides several exclusions, including the supply of goods or services whose price depends on fluctuations in the financial market beyond the professional's control, and the supply of digital content not on a tangible medium whose performance has begun before the end of the period, provided, where the contract is for payment, that the consumer has given prior express consent, acknowledged that they will lose their right and received the confirmation of that consent provided for in Article L. 221-13. These texts do not address the digital token, and the firm has found no published judgment on the question. Characterisation also matters: the Court of Cassation held that a website-creation contract, which "does not concern the transfer of ownership of one or more movable goods within the meaning of Article 528 of the Civil Code, cannot be characterised as a sale within the meaning of the Consumer Code provisions on contracts concluded away from business premises" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 28 May 2026, No. 25-14.507). The judgment concerns a customised website, under texts predating the ordinance of 22 December 2021; it does not characterise the purchase of an NFT. The firm therefore examines the purchase journey, the information displayed and the consents obtained before reaching a conclusion.

Two mechanisms must be distinguished. The first is contractual: the issuer provides, in the licence or in the smart contract, for a percentage to be levied on each resale. Its effectiveness depends on the marketplace, which may or may not apply it, and on the undertaking given by the reseller. The second is statutory: the resale right under Article L. 122-8 CPI allows the author of an original graphic or plastic work to share in the price of sales after the first assignment where an art market professional is involved, unless the seller acquired the work directly from the author less than three years before the sale for a price not exceeding 10,000 euros; the right is not payable below 750 euros excluding tax (Article R. 122-5 CPI). That text does not address the digital token, and the firm has found no published judgment applying it to the resale of an NFT. For the classic resale right, the plenary assembly accepted that the person liable may agree with any other person, including the buyer, "that the latter definitively bears, in whole or in part, the cost of the resale right" (our translation), without affecting their obligations towards the author (Cass. ass. plén., 9 November 2018, No. 17-16.335). The firm drafts or analyses the royalty clause accordingly.

Not without permission. Article L. 122-4 CPI prohibits any reproduction or representation not authorised by the author, and also covers adaptation, transformation and arrangement. The moral right under Article L. 121-1 also protects respect for the work and the author's name, even after an assignment of the economic rights. A collection licence may authorise derivative creations, but it must say so, and its scope remains limited to what is written. The starting point remains the existence of a protected work. The Court of Cassation recalled, in a case concerning a piece of furniture, that originality requires unconstrained, creative choices reflecting the author's personality, and that "the creative character of those choices, within the meaning of copyright law, cannot be presumed" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 9 April 2026, No. 25-11.711). A visual generated by automatic variations or composed of commonplace elements may therefore raise a preliminary question of originality. The firm checks both the protection of the image and the scope of the licence before any derivative exploitation.

The risk is real. The Paris Judicial Court found that a bag reproducing the characteristics of protected models "was offered for sale and actually sold, which constitutes a representation and a reproduction of the work" (our translation), and extended that reasoning to the NFT representing the bag, offered on a marketplace (TJ Paris, 7 February 2025, RG 22/09210). The company was held liable for copyright and trade mark infringement. In that case, the issuer was the defendant, not a buyer reselling the token. A reseller may nevertheless be pursued if they themselves reproduce or represent the work without permission, within the meaning of Article L. 122-4. To set damages, the court takes into account separately the economic consequences, the moral harm and the infringer's profits, under Article L. 331-1-3. The firm assesses the reseller's position, their recourse against their own seller and the benefit of a rapid takedown of the listing.

Not entirely against a consumer. Article L. 212-1 of the Consumer Code deems unfair those clauses that create a significant imbalance to the consumer's detriment, and a decree lists clauses irrebuttably presumed to be unfair. The Court of Cassation held that "a clause whose purpose is to remove or reduce the consumer's right to compensation for loss suffered where the professional breaches any of their obligations is irrebuttably presumed to be unfair" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 11 December 2019, No. 18-21.164). That judgment concerned a removals company; the rule applies to any contract between a professional and a consumer. Outside a consumer relationship, and subject to a special regime such as that of the Commercial Code between business partners, Article 1171 of the Civil Code deems unwritten, in a standard-form contract, a non-negotiable clause that creates a significant imbalance, and Article 1170 deems unwritten one that deprives the essential obligation of its substance. A clause leaving the user custody of their own keys may, however, remain valid. The firm distinguishes limitation of liability, which is prohibited or restricted, from the legitimate allocation of security obligations.

The answer depends on the provider's obligations and the user's precautions. The Versailles Court of Appeal held, in a case concerning cryptocurrencies diverted from a client's account by fraudulent transactions, that "cryptocurrencies belong to a category of their own, a token having the nature of an incorporeal asset capable of being exchanged between private persons" (our translation), and refused to apply the regime for payment transactions; the client's claims were dismissed and the judgment upheld (CA Versailles, ch. civ. 1-6, 27 November 2025, No. 24/05267). That decision, given on 2020 transactions predating the MiCA Regulation, is unfavourable to the user. Conversely, the Grenoble Court of Appeal held liable a platform that operated without the registration then required: the user was "entitled to seek the liability of Bitstamp Europe on account of its fault in failing to suspend its activity pending its approval by the AMF" (our translation), but the claim for the capital gain hoped for was rejected (CA Grenoble, ch. com., 26 June 2025, No. 24/02105). These cases concern cryptocurrencies, not NFTs. They indicate the method: identify the provider's fault, prove the real loss and do not claim a hoped-for market price.

Only if the promise is clear and proven. The urgent applications judge of the Paris Judicial Court refused an interim payment to a buyer of tokens who relied on a refund clause in case of a fall in price after listing, noting that "the contractual provisions on the refund procedure are particularly imprecise" (our translation) and that an undated screenshot did not make it possible to verify the value of the tokens (TJ Paris, réf., 4 March 2024, No. 24/50025). The decision is unfavourable to the buyer: the dispute was serious and there was no ground for an urgent application. It concerned crypto tokens and not NFTs, but the lesson is direct. A promise of appreciation must fix its trigger, its date of assessment and its method of calculation. In addition, a token issued in large series or fractionalised may lose its unique character: recital 11 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 indicates that a mass issuance of tokens is an indication of fungibility, and Article 2(3) excludes from the Regulation only unique and non-fungible crypto-assets. The firm examines the classification of the token before assessing the promise.