3 ms·

In this case, the article said her father took the photo, so I don't think there's going to be a dispute over that. But also, it's not entirely clear to me you

In this case, the article said her father took the photo, so I don't think there's going to be a dispute over that. But also, it's not entirely clear to me you "need" to own the copyright to something to sell an NFT based on it. All you "need" is whatever the buyers think you need, and since the whole thing makes no sense to me either, I don't especially expect that to make any sense either. Note that selling the NFT is not the same as selling a license or a copyright. The article also notes "And as is the case with many NFT sales, the Roths also retain the copyright to the image and will make 10 percent off any future sales of the NFT."

danShumway 6y ago
This has come up a couple of times, and I always wonder about it. I'm sure Disney would sue regardless of whether or not they had any right to, but as far as I can figure out, anyone could make NFTs of Disney's entire online movie catalogue and there'd be no copyright issues at all. Someone like Banksy or even just some random person off the street could make another NFT of "Disaster Girl" and sell it for the same price, and it's not clear to me that the original author could do anything about it. It's worth hammering home over and over that the vast majority of NFTs are just a link. They don't carry any ownership rights at all, or any exclusivity rights. It's no different than pasting a link into a Facebook post.