2 ms·

NFTs generally aren't a transfer of copyright. > An NFT is a bit like a collectible certificate of authenticity, but its owner does not actually buy the copyri

NFTs generally aren't a transfer of copyright. > An NFT is a bit like a collectible certificate of authenticity, but its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself - meaning the artwork the NFT represents can still be shown wherever the original artist or creator chooses. So the whole question is moot. All you own is the NFT and the NFT is associated with some cultural artifact but doesn't represent any legal rights. Like other cryptocurrencies it's a speculative asset whose value is based on the fact that people want to buy them and little else.

jrochkind1 5y ago
The question seems to be subject to a lot of confusion. A lot of other people in this thread seem to believe differently. The article in the OP also seems to believe differently, which is what made me ask the question. > But now the much-loved clip of baby Charlie gnawing on his brother Harry's finger will be taken off YouTube after it was sold for $760,999 (£538,000). > The Davies-Carr family auctioned the clip as an NFT, a non-fungible token. The quote says the video was sold, and that this will naturally result in it being removed from you tube, and then explains it was sold "as an NFT" which is "like a certificate to say that you own something digital". I think you may be right, but the majority of people talking about NFT's don't seem to realize it. Including a bunch of people in this thread.
- oneeyedpigeon 5y ago
  The owners can choose to remove the video from YouTube if they want. If the buyers are at least half-savvy, the sellers might opt to do that in order to give the NFT more 'worth'. But there's nothing inherent in NFT that means that's necessary, or that they couldn't just put it back on YouTube next week. Or that they couldn't sell hundreds of other NFTs for the same video, or sell the copyright to the video, the one thing in all this that's really meaningful.

jrochkind1 5y ago

The question seems to be subject to a lot of confusion. A lot of other people in this thread seem to believe differently. The article in the OP also seems to believe differently, which is what made me ask the question. > But now the much-loved clip of baby Charlie gnawing on his brother Harry's finger will be taken off YouTube after it was sold for $760,999 (£538,000). > The Davies-Carr family auctioned the clip as an NFT, a non-fungible token. The quote says the video was sold, and that this will naturally result in it being removed from you tube, and then explains it was sold "as an NFT" which is "like a certificate to say that you own something digital". I think you may be right, but the majority of people talking about NFT's don't seem to realize it. Including a bunch of people in this thread.

oneeyedpigeon 5y ago
The owners can choose to remove the video from YouTube if they want. If the buyers are at least half-savvy, the sellers might opt to do that in order to give the NFT more 'worth'. But there's nothing inherent in NFT that means that's necessary, or that they couldn't just put it back on YouTube next week. Or that they couldn't sell hundreds of other NFTs for the same video, or sell the copyright to the video, the one thing in all this that's really meaningful.