3 ms·

> By contrast, the entity that purchased the NFT for the Beeple JPG does not have any rights whatsoever over the JPG or its intellectual property. This varies

> By contrast, the entity that purchased the NFT for the Beeple JPG does not have any rights whatsoever over the JPG or its intellectual property. This varies by NFT. Like software, different NFTs have different license agreements. Some grant exclusive copyright ownership to the holder of the NFT. The industry as a whole lacks standardization in this respect. But the main NFT marketplaces are working on this.

runako 6y ago
> for the Beeple JPG is not an industry problem. Another big player is NBA Top Shot, which also is not selling IP rights. In theory, something like an NFT could be useful. But this isn't about standards at this point. The NBA isn't retaining IP because there's no standards, they're doing it because they're not going to give away their valuable IP when suckers will pay to say they paid for a receipt.
Anon1096 6y ago
Selling the copyright on an image is completely orthogonal to the NFT it is being accompanied with, however. The NFT is only acting as a certificate of ownership saying that someone verifiably possesses the NFT. In my opinion, the NFT bring sold alongside the copyright adds very little value that couldn't already be done pre-blockchains. Courts were perfectly capable of evaluating ownership claims in the past. And many of these NFTs don't even pretend to sell ownership of any underlying asset. Take Jack Dorsey's tweet, or the burned Banksy artwork for example. When you buy those, you get ownership of exactly 0 actual assets. It's just cashing in on NFTmania (and the larger cryptomania).
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Not at all. You can hash a document that contains the rights to IPFS and embed that file hash on the NFT itself. I can imagine in the future we will see license agreements similar to how open source software has MIT, Apache, GNU, etc delineated by a LICENSE.md file in the root directory of the repo. It removes all ambiguity. It's even defensible in court. The burned Banksy also had a digital representation attached to the NFT. The Jack Dorsey tweet was sold by the man himself. He verified it on his own social network. In that sense the Jack Dorsey NFT is as good as an autographed Babe Ruth baseball.
  - sneak 6y ago
    But it doesn't convey any ownership rights, unlike a copyright license. The person who bought the NFT representing the tweet can't, for example, delete the tweet. It's not actually theirs.
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  It makes it easier to trade ownership rights. Of course it was possible before, just not very convenient.
sneak 6y ago
Just as NFTs do not represent the thing being sold, NFTs have no license or license agreement.

runako 6y ago

> for the Beeple JPG is not an industry problem. Another big player is NBA Top Shot, which also is not selling IP rights. In theory, something like an NFT could be useful. But this isn't about standards at this point. The NBA isn't retaining IP because there's no standards, they're doing it because they're not going to give away their valuable IP when suckers will pay to say they paid for a receipt.

Anon1096 6y ago

Selling the copyright on an image is completely orthogonal to the NFT it is being accompanied with, however. The NFT is only acting as a certificate of ownership saying that someone verifiably possesses the NFT. In my opinion, the NFT bring sold alongside the copyright adds very little value that couldn't already be done pre-blockchains. Courts were perfectly capable of evaluating ownership claims in the past. And many of these NFTs don't even pretend to sell ownership of any underlying asset. Take Jack Dorsey's tweet, or the burned Banksy artwork for example. When you buy those, you get ownership of exactly 0 actual assets. It's just cashing in on NFTmania (and the larger cryptomania).

chrisco255 6y ago
Not at all. You can hash a document that contains the rights to IPFS and embed that file hash on the NFT itself. I can imagine in the future we will see license agreements similar to how open source software has MIT, Apache, GNU, etc delineated by a LICENSE.md file in the root directory of the repo. It removes all ambiguity. It's even defensible in court. The burned Banksy also had a digital representation attached to the NFT. The Jack Dorsey tweet was sold by the man himself. He verified it on his own social network. In that sense the Jack Dorsey NFT is as good as an autographed Babe Ruth baseball.
- sneak 6y ago
  But it doesn't convey any ownership rights, unlike a copyright license. The person who bought the NFT representing the tweet can't, for example, delete the tweet. It's not actually theirs.
psychiatrist24 6y ago
It makes it easier to trade ownership rights. Of course it was possible before, just not very convenient.

sneak 6y ago

Just as NFTs do not represent the thing being sold, NFTs have no license or license agreement.