4 ms·
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 ownershi
by 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 agoNot 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 agoBut 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 agoIt makes it easier to trade ownership rights. Of course it was possible before, just not very convenient.