On November 3, the acclaimed film director, Quentin Tarantino publicly announced his intention to invest in the NFT (Non-Fungible Token) market, auctioning seven unreleased scenes from ‘Pulp Fiction’ under this digital category. 

Since that moment, the website named “Tarantino NFT Collection” has been open, with the possibility of signing up for a waiting list – also known as an “interest form”- which will give access to an auction that could be one of the first of its kind on the market, composed of handwritten scripts and exclusive Tarantino commentaries never seen before.

Under this scenario, on November 16, Miramax studios sued the filmmaker in Los Angeles, questioning his right to sell, in the form of NFTs, virtual art objects or unused scenes from his screenplay for the movie “Pulp Fiction.” The claimant alleges that the director kept his plans for Miramax’s Pulp Fiction NFT secret, and had ignored a cease and desist regarding the sale of NFT.

Tarantino’s behavior forced Miramax to file this suit against an esteemed employee to “enforce and protect his intellectual and contractual rights to one of Miramax’s most iconic and valuable films”, wrote the firm.

The award-winning director’s initiative “could lead some to think that they have the right to undertake similar businesses when in fact it is Miramax that has the rights to develop and commercialize NFT in relation to its extensive catalog of films,” they added.

However, the suit has not stopped the project, since last Wednesday, Tarantino and its partner SCRT Labs announced in a press release, that the public auction of the seven non-fungible tokens would take place from January 17 to 31.

They also noted that the NFTs in the collection will reflect a single scene from one of the seven chapters of the original manuscript, as well as audio commentaries from the director.

Finally, the executive director of SCRT Labs indicated that they would not wait for the legal process to conclude to carry out the launch of the crypto project. And he was confident that they and the director have the upper hand, ensuring that they have not only the morally superior ground, but also the superior legal ground in the dispute.