4 ms·

So how does this work? Does whoever buys that NFT now own the copyright to that image?

by ginko 6y ago

bhouston 6y ago
Here is the license: https://www.niftylicense.org https://www.niftylicense.org The rights are quite limited: > Use the Kitty art for your own personal, non-commercial use; > Use the Kitty art to commercialize your own merchandise, provided that you aren’t earning more than $100,000 in revenue each year from doing so. You can not: > Modifying the art; > Using the art to market or sell third-party products; > Using the art in connection with images of hatred, violence, or other inappropriate behavior; or > Trying to trademark your art, or otherwise acquire intellectual property rights in it. So basically you get to look at it mostly and resell it otherwise you need to reacquire another commercial license.
- qqii 6y ago
  Where are you getting that? This is just a possible licence that can be adopted and I see no evidence that this specific nft has adopted this licence.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  That's the real kicker. This NFT fad isn't about ownership of the underyling asset, it seems more accurate to call it a fiction that has value as a novelty collectible, analogous to baseball cards. Buying an NFT for a tweet doesn't buy you the copyrights, neither does it buy you the ability to delete the tweet. [0] The true owner of the tweet isn't even obligated not to delete it. [0] [0] https://www.wired.com/story/nft-art-market-tweets/ https://www.wired.com/story/nft-art-market-tweets/
  - qqii 6y ago
    It depends on the asset being NFTified. A lot of art NFTs now come with similar licences whereas obviously tweet and collectable NFTs come with their own licences.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      Then why not just buy the licence/copyrights? Either way, NFTs are just a novelty.
- wccrawford 6y ago
  I'm actually impressed that there are any rights stated. But without proof that the NFT seller actually had those rights to sell, it still doesn't mean anything.
  - qqii 6y ago
    The same goes for software licences. In both cases there's implicit trust and verification.

So how does this work? Does whoever buys that NFT now own the copyright to that image?

by ginko 6y ago

So how does this work? Does whoever buys that NFT now own the copyright to that image?

Here is the license: https://www.niftylicense.org https://www.niftylicense.org The rights are quite limited: > Use the Kitty art for your own personal, non-commercial use; > Use the Kitty art to commercialize your own merchandise, provided that you aren’t earning more than $100,000 in revenue each year from doing so. You can not: > Modifying the art; > Using the art to market or sell third-party products; > Using the art in connection with images of hatred, violence, or other inappropriate behavior; or > Trying to trademark your art, or otherwise acquire intellectual property rights in it. So basically you get to look at it mostly and resell it otherwise you need to reacquire another commercial license.

qqii 6y ago
Where are you getting that? This is just a possible licence that can be adopted and I see no evidence that this specific nft has adopted this licence.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
That's the real kicker. This NFT fad isn't about ownership of the underyling asset, it seems more accurate to call it a fiction that has value as a novelty collectible, analogous to baseball cards. Buying an NFT for a tweet doesn't buy you the copyrights, neither does it buy you the ability to delete the tweet. [0] The true owner of the tweet isn't even obligated not to delete it. [0] [0] https://www.wired.com/story/nft-art-market-tweets/ https://www.wired.com/story/nft-art-market-tweets/
- qqii 6y ago
  It depends on the asset being NFTified. A lot of art NFTs now come with similar licences whereas obviously tweet and collectable NFTs come with their own licences.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Then why not just buy the licence/copyrights? Either way, NFTs are just a novelty.
wccrawford 6y ago
I'm actually impressed that there are any rights stated. But without proof that the NFT seller actually had those rights to sell, it still doesn't mean anything.
- qqii 6y ago
  The same goes for software licences. In both cases there's implicit trust and verification.