Recently, a website called hitpiece.com launched. This website claims to sell NFTs of songs. The problem is that the website has no license or permission to use the songs. And the library of NFTs include some of the biggest names in the music industry and some of our personal favorites (Jackie Venson). The use of other’s music without permission very likely constitutes copyright infringement.

Under United States copyright law, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their works (among other rights). And when hitpiece.com is reproducing and selling this music, they are very likely committing copyright infringement.

Rights holders have the power to stop this infringement and collect damages for hitpiece.com’s willful infringement. Copyright damages can be as much as $150,000 per work infringed, plus the award of attorney fees and expenses.

Artists have the power in this situation, but it takes working with experienced copyright attorneys that understand the NFT and digital music space.

If your music was posted for sale on hitpiece.com, please contact Revision Legal through the contact form below or call us at 855-473-8474.

What Hitpiece.com Was Doing and Why It Mattered

The hitpiece.com situation crystallized a legal problem that was already building in the NFT space: the conflation of owning a token with owning rights in the underlying creative work. Hitpiece.com was generating NFTs associated with songs and artists and selling those tokens without any license from the copyright owners — the artists, songwriters, and record labels who own the sound recordings and musical compositions. Purchasers of these tokens were paying real money under the mistaken belief that they were acquiring something of legitimate value tied to the music. They were not. They were acquiring a token associated with property the seller had no right to sell.

From a copyright law standpoint, the core issue is straightforward. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, grants copyright owners six exclusive rights in their works: reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, derivative works, and (for sound recordings) digital audio transmission. A website that reproduces a copyrighted sound recording to create an associated NFT and then distributes that NFT — and the associated reproduction — for sale without a license is infringing at minimum the reproduction and distribution rights. When the copying is done with knowledge that no license exists, it qualifies as willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), which carries statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work.

The “Right of First Sale” Does Not Apply to NFTs of Unauthorized Copies

One argument sometimes raised in NFT copyright disputes is that the first sale doctrine — codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109 — allows the owner of a lawfully made copy to resell that copy without the copyright owner’s permission. This doctrine is what allows you to resell a physical CD or a book without paying the artist again. However, the first sale doctrine has no application to unlicensed digital copies. In Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018), the Second Circuit held that resale of digital music files requires copying those files — which constitutes new reproduction, not mere resale of an existing physical copy. Because hitpiece.com was generating new digital artifacts without authorization, the first sale doctrine could not have provided any defense.

The DMCA Takedown Process for NFT-Based Infringement

For artists whose music was listed on hitpiece.com, the immediate legal remedy was to file DMCA takedown notices under 17 U.S.C. § 512. The DMCA’s safe harbor provisions protect platforms from copyright liability for user-uploaded content if they promptly respond to properly formatted takedown notices. The notice must identify the copyrighted work being infringed, identify the infringing material and its location on the platform, include a statement of good faith belief that the use is unauthorized, and be signed under penalty of perjury.

However, DMCA takedowns address the platform hosting the infringing content — they do not prevent the infringer from re-uploading the content to new platforms. For serial infringers like hitpiece.com, litigation to obtain a permanent injunction and monetary damages is the only remedy that creates lasting deterrence. Courts can issue preliminary injunctions against ongoing copyright infringement under the standard for injunctive relief established in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) — including showing irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedies, balance of hardships, and public interest.

NFTs, Ownership, and What Rights Actually Transfer

The broader lesson from hitpiece.com is that NFTs represent ownership of a token — a record on a blockchain — not ownership of the underlying copyright. When a legitimate artist or rights holder mints an NFT of their own work and sells it, the terms of that sale determine what rights, if any, the buyer receives. By default — absent a written agreement expressly transferring copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 204 — the buyer of an NFT acquires no copyright rights at all. The buyer cannot reproduce the work, create derivative works, or publicly perform the work. They own the token, which may carry contractual or technical benefits the issuer specified, but the copyright remains with the original creator.

Artists and rights holders entering the NFT space should work with experienced intellectual property counsel to structure NFT offerings clearly — specifying what rights, if any, transfer with the token and ensuring that smart contract terms are consistent with the intended license.

Contact Revision Legal

Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys represent artists, record labels, and rights holders in copyright infringement litigation, DMCA enforcement, and NFT intellectual property matters. If your creative work has been used without permission — including in the NFT space — contact us today at 855-473-8474.