I think the idea is trying to replicate ownership of a physical item. When you own a book or a painting, you don't own the underlying copyright in that item and

I think the idea is trying to replicate ownership of a physical item. When you own a book or a painting, you don't own the underlying copyright in that item and you don't control reproduction and distribution of the item or the creation of derivative works (i.e., if I buy a paperback copy of Confederacy of Dunces, I can't contract with a movie studio to make a movie based on the book -- I just own a copy of the book and that's it). But who honestly wants to own a digital copy (without underlying rights) of something that can't be consumed like a movie or book? We're supposed to now pay for an image I can view freely? Where's the benefit in owning the NFT of an asset? Perhaps if a device manufacturer comes out with a device to display ultra-high resolution art images in an attractive frame and you can only obtain a compatible copy of the ultra high-res image if you buy the corresponding NFT, this could be an attractive offering if executed properly but I'm not aware of any devices that create such value for NFTs. NFTs are somewhat interesting but I strongly suspect there is market manipulation (most likely by players with investments in NFT-adjacent entities) going on with some of these NFT sales.