3 ms·
It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. If you are
by miracle2k 5y ago
It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. If you are minting an NFT today, putting the file on IPFS, accepting the fact that it will be freely available across the internet, and selling to someone "digital ownership", you will I think fins it hard to convince a judge that you did not intend to grant such a license.
Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo.
- arcticbull 5y ago> It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned. > Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo. Nah anyone can do it any time.
- miracle2k 5y ago> No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned. No one is talking about assigning copyright. The question is about a license to display the content on a website. I am fairly certain you have heard of non-verbal contracts before. For example, here is what the UK government has to say about an implied copyright license: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copyright-material https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copy... > Nah anyone can do it any time. Anyone can also sell a signature of Clooney. And yet no one does, nor would anyone buy it. This is not something that plays into a serious analysis of the NFT space, and so I am not sure why you would want to find it interesting to talk about.
- arcticbull 5y agoNfts explicitly grant exactly no rights whatsoever and you will not find a judge that will impose that burden.