While most people are convinced that NFTs are the perfect example for everything that is wrong with modern society, it hasn’t stopped artists from trying to sell them. Ranging from Wong Kar-wai to Quentin Tarantino, a lot of cinematic pioneers are trying to get into the NFT business to make some serious money by commodifying cultural artefacts.
Tarantino is trying to do so by converting secret scenes from his magnum opus Pulp Fiction which have never been seen before into NFTs. These digital non-fungible tokens are being marketed as unique investment opportunities, conceptualised as the virtual extension of the art market but for the virtual space.
The Pulp Fiction NFTs curated by Tarantino feature portions of the screenplay along with the director commentary as well as a version of the original Pulp Fiction screenplay which Tarantino has kept under wraps since the film’s release. The seven selected scenes will be auctioned off this January and can only be decrypted by the buyers.
Although Tarantino had announced his intention to sell these NFTs back in November, Miramax filed a lawsuit against the director to “protect its contractual and intellectual property rights relating to one of Miramax’s most iconic and valuable film properties.” The lawsuit is still very much in the mix but Tarantino is proceeding with the NFT sale anyway.
According to Tarantino’s team, the director holds the exclusive rights to publish his screenplay and that extends to NFTs as well. However, Miramax has released a statement after this recent announcement to remind everyone that Tarantino had not won the lawsuit yet and that legal retribution was a real possibility.
Miramax’s statement read: “Any claim that Tarantino has ‘defeated’ this lawsuit is verifiably false as Miramax’s claims and the litigation remains pending.” The studio also noted that Tarantino’s team had not been successful in dismissing any of the real legal problems put forward by Miramax either.
The statement added: “For anyone to presume Tarantino victorious at this time by merely filing his response to the complaint is inaccurate, misleading and premature to say the least.”