The article focuses on whether this change to Article 9 requires a reevaluation of whether certain intellectual property rights are better characterized as commercial torts rather than general intangibles. If so, this will place severe restrictions on the ability of debtors to use those forms of intellectual property as collateral. I propose a two part test to determine the proper characterization: First, is the intellectual property right one that exists primarily to vindicate interests of the owner? Second, is the intellectual property right alienable? Using this test, for example, it is my conclusion that moral rights can never be general intangibles, whereas a right of publicity is properly characterized as a general intangible.