7 ms·

So in this context, is this anything more then a sale of copyright over the video? Does youtube let you transfer videos from one owner to another while preservi

So in this context, is this anything more then a sale of copyright over the video? Does youtube let you transfer videos from one owner to another while preserving the link?

danielvf 5y ago
It's actually not a sale of copyright - that remains with the family. It's purely the sale of the NFT. You can see the terms of the sale here: https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms
- Joeboy 5y ago
  When you say "the NFT" - there isn't actually any legal or technical reason the family can't sell more NFTs of the video, is there? Or anybody else for that matter, unless they count as derived works I guess.
  - mattigames 5y ago
    This NFT in particular is the first one for that video and the one going famous on social media therefore it's the "valuable" one, I wish I was joking.
  - danielvf 5y ago
    If you made a hundred atom-exact replicas of the Mona Lisa, it wouldn't dent the value of the "real" Mona Lisa very much, if at all, outside of the difficulty in telling them apart - and the nature of NFT's mean that it's absolutely clear which one is the "real" one. Technically, of course someone could clone it. No value there though, since the clones would lack scarcity, and wouldn't be "authentic". Legally, no one else can clone this particular NFT, since that would be directly copying someone else's copyrighted work. The family, the owners of the copyright could, but the odds of clones selling for anything would be minimal.
    - Joeboy 5y ago
      But if you sold a hundred notes saying "the bearer of this paper owns the Mona Lisa", they're going to lose value pretty quickly once people catch on. That seems more like the right metaphor to me. I don't know about cloning an NFT, but creating an NFT is just putting a link, or hash etc, on a blockchain, isn't it? Or thereabouts. Anybody can do that, without owning the copyright. I think it's pretty well established that a link is not copyright infringement. I'm not sure about a hash, but I very much doubt it.
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        If Damien Hirst sold 1000 more sharks they would also lose value quickly, right?
        Joeboy 5y ago
        I guess so? Not sure where you're going with that.
        miracle2k 5y ago
        I suppose I am asking why people are concerned about this with NFTs then.
        Joeboy 5y ago
        Because, as I understand it, the idea of an NFT is to demonstrate some sort of "ownership" of a work of art. The issue I have is that they don't do that. An ownership document that can legally be duplicated and distributed ad-infinitum by anybody at zero cost is not an effective ownership document. Even for the novel and legally meaningless version of "ownership" conferred by NFTs. If Damien Hirst sells 1000 sharks, the buyers get the physical sharks themselves, I guess along with some falsifiable and legally meaningful documentation. They really do own the sharks, physically and legally.
        5y ago
- codingdave 5y ago
  That is what makes this so absurd to me. You are buying... nothing. A right to say you "own" something while the family still clearly owns it. You cannot do anything with it, they can do everything. It is like the companies that sell you stars or acres on the moon. I just don't see any sense to this.
  - BenoitEssiambre 5y ago
    It's a digital autograph. I'm not sure why it would be worth that much though.

So in this context, is this anything more then a sale of copyright over the video? Does youtube let you transfer videos from one owner to another while preserving the link?

danielvf 5y ago

It's actually not a sale of copyright - that remains with the family. It's purely the sale of the NFT. You can see the terms of the sale here: https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms

Joeboy 5y ago
When you say "the NFT" - there isn't actually any legal or technical reason the family can't sell more NFTs of the video, is there? Or anybody else for that matter, unless they count as derived works I guess.
- mattigames 5y ago
  This NFT in particular is the first one for that video and the one going famous on social media therefore it's the "valuable" one, I wish I was joking.
- danielvf 5y ago
  If you made a hundred atom-exact replicas of the Mona Lisa, it wouldn't dent the value of the "real" Mona Lisa very much, if at all, outside of the difficulty in telling them apart - and the nature of NFT's mean that it's absolutely clear which one is the "real" one. Technically, of course someone could clone it. No value there though, since the clones would lack scarcity, and wouldn't be "authentic". Legally, no one else can clone this particular NFT, since that would be directly copying someone else's copyrighted work. The family, the owners of the copyright could, but the odds of clones selling for anything would be minimal.
  - Joeboy 5y ago
    But if you sold a hundred notes saying "the bearer of this paper owns the Mona Lisa", they're going to lose value pretty quickly once people catch on. That seems more like the right metaphor to me. I don't know about cloning an NFT, but creating an NFT is just putting a link, or hash etc, on a blockchain, isn't it? Or thereabouts. Anybody can do that, without owning the copyright. I think it's pretty well established that a link is not copyright infringement. I'm not sure about a hash, but I very much doubt it.
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      If Damien Hirst sold 1000 more sharks they would also lose value quickly, right?
      - Joeboy 5y ago
        I guess so? Not sure where you're going with that.
        miracle2k 5y ago
        I suppose I am asking why people are concerned about this with NFTs then.
        Joeboy 5y ago
        Because, as I understand it, the idea of an NFT is to demonstrate some sort of "ownership" of a work of art. The issue I have is that they don't do that. An ownership document that can legally be duplicated and distributed ad-infinitum by anybody at zero cost is not an effective ownership document. Even for the novel and legally meaningless version of "ownership" conferred by NFTs. If Damien Hirst sells 1000 sharks, the buyers get the physical sharks themselves, I guess along with some falsifiable and legally meaningful documentation. They really do own the sharks, physically and legally.
        5y ago
codingdave 5y ago
That is what makes this so absurd to me. You are buying... nothing. A right to say you "own" something while the family still clearly owns it. You cannot do anything with it, they can do everything. It is like the companies that sell you stars or acres on the moon. I just don't see any sense to this.
- BenoitEssiambre 5y ago
  It's a digital autograph. I'm not sure why it would be worth that much though.