6 ms·

> But I still think NFTs have a future as digitally signed proof of ownership of media assets. NFTs are not proof of ownership, because anyone can create an NF

by lottin 5y ago

> But I still think NFTs have a future as digitally signed proof of ownership of media assets. NFTs are not proof of ownership, because anyone can create an NFT of anything. I can create an NFT of my neighbour's car.

jrh206 5y ago
They are proof of ownership if you trust the originator of the NFT, in this case it would be someone like the photographer or Getty.
- lottin 5y ago
  But if you have to trust the originator it's not a "proof" is it? A proof is something that can be demonstrated to be true.
tshaddox 5y ago
I think it's pretty clear from the proposal that the only relevant NFT for some piece of digital media would be the NFT created by the original copyright holder of that piece of digital media. For example, Getty could issue NFTs for a particular stock photograph. Obviously any random person could create an NFT and claim that it represents ownership of a particular stock photograph, but that's not really relevant or problematic. You could also create a traditional paper certificate of title for your neighbor's car too, but obviously no one would respect it (unless they were tricked, but that's against the law and the legal system would tend to respect that genuine certificate of title).
- boublepop 5y ago
  Brilliant! So what you are saying is that NFT’s are a good documentation of ownership… if we assume some other system takes care of documenting that the NFT was in fact created by the owner. So you know if we have some other system to track ownership.
  - Raidion 5y ago
    For a lot of stuff that's really not a hard problem. You just create the NFT of the hash before publicly releasing the item, it's only for stuff that exists out there in the world already that's a problem. Doesn't mean it's not a good way to resolve stuff going forward. Biggest problem with NFTs are how they integrate with the existing legal frameworks of copyright, etc.
  - chime 5y ago
    If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. If I buy it at totally-legit-stock-photos.example.com, then it's on me to resolve the matter with Getty when they say my NFT is invalid. Getty's crawlers can still go around the web looking for stolen images. But if the images have a signature from a different vendor, then instead of just going after the gullible users, they can go after the signers. And if the images do not have any signatures, they keep doing what they've been doing already. Copyright is big business and big business is copyright. Disney could absolutely start signing all of their media with NFT and every license holder would have X years to implement it properly. After that they can automate takedown notices for any commercial site/platform that uses their non-NFT'd images. Right now they need to manually verify if the Hulk coffee mug on Overstock.com is using licensed images or not.
    - fooker 5y ago
      Your elaborate idea is defeated by screenshots.
    - lottin 5y ago
      > If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. This is not proof enough. You don't know that getty 1) owns the asset 2) hasn't sold other "proofs of ownership" of the same asset to other people.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Both of those theoretical problems exist for physical paintings as well. You don't know that Salvator Mundi was actually painted by Leonardo da Vinci (maybe his gardener painted it and he lied to everyone saying it was him), or maybe he actually painted it several times. Perhaps one day we'll find evidence that the gardener actually painted it, or we'll find additional "original" copies, and suddenly the value of our current "original" will be reduced.
- chime 5y ago
  Precisely. When you license a digital asset, it has licensing terms associated with it - single entity use, multiple entity use, allowed form of media etc. Getty would sell me a new NFT for any asset I want to license and embed that signature in the asset I download. Even if current NFTs don't support everything, the blockchain algo could be extended incorporate the needs of the parties involved.
- kibwen 5y ago
  And how do you associate a given NFT as being issued by the true owner of a real-world asset? The answer: by trusting a centralized external authority to verify the association. And if you're already trusting that centralized authority, what's even the point of the NFT?
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Can you determine the authenticity of a physical painting, or would you trust experts?
    - manigandham 5y ago
      That's not related to this at all.
- lottin 5y ago
  Of course it's problematic. That's why most countries have land and vehicle registries managed by a trusted authority. If people had to rely on titles of ownership issued by random strangers it'd be chaos.
- manigandham 5y ago
  Contracts only hold power because of the government which can adjudicate and enforce the laws. How those contracts are written, whether it's on paper or on the blockchain, is the least interesting part of it all. NFTs add no value that existing recordkeeping cant already do (usually much better and faster).
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > I think it's pretty clear from the proposal that the only relevant NFT for some piece of digital media would be the NFT created by the original copyright holder of that piece of digital media. So in order for the NFT to work, you need some sort of way to identify the copyright holder before the NFT even exists. Don't see you the issue? If you can identify the copyright holder of a work without an NFT, what's the point of the NFT?

by lottin 5y ago

jrh206 5y ago

They are proof of ownership if you trust the originator of the NFT, in this case it would be someone like the photographer or Getty.

lottin 5y ago
But if you have to trust the originator it's not a "proof" is it? A proof is something that can be demonstrated to be true.

tshaddox 5y ago

I think it's pretty clear from the proposal that the only relevant NFT for some piece of digital media would be the NFT created by the original copyright holder of that piece of digital media. For example, Getty could issue NFTs for a particular stock photograph. Obviously any random person could create an NFT and claim that it represents ownership of a particular stock photograph, but that's not really relevant or problematic. You could also create a traditional paper certificate of title for your neighbor's car too, but obviously no one would respect it (unless they were tricked, but that's against the law and the legal system would tend to respect that genuine certificate of title).

boublepop 5y ago
Brilliant! So what you are saying is that NFT’s are a good documentation of ownership… if we assume some other system takes care of documenting that the NFT was in fact created by the owner. So you know if we have some other system to track ownership.
- Raidion 5y ago
  For a lot of stuff that's really not a hard problem. You just create the NFT of the hash before publicly releasing the item, it's only for stuff that exists out there in the world already that's a problem. Doesn't mean it's not a good way to resolve stuff going forward. Biggest problem with NFTs are how they integrate with the existing legal frameworks of copyright, etc.
- chime 5y ago
  If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. If I buy it at totally-legit-stock-photos.example.com, then it's on me to resolve the matter with Getty when they say my NFT is invalid. Getty's crawlers can still go around the web looking for stolen images. But if the images have a signature from a different vendor, then instead of just going after the gullible users, they can go after the signers. And if the images do not have any signatures, they keep doing what they've been doing already. Copyright is big business and big business is copyright. Disney could absolutely start signing all of their media with NFT and every license holder would have X years to implement it properly. After that they can automate takedown notices for any commercial site/platform that uses their non-NFT'd images. Right now they need to manually verify if the Hulk coffee mug on Overstock.com is using licensed images or not.
  - fooker 5y ago
    Your elaborate idea is defeated by screenshots.
  - lottin 5y ago
    > If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. This is not proof enough. You don't know that getty 1) owns the asset 2) hasn't sold other "proofs of ownership" of the same asset to other people.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Both of those theoretical problems exist for physical paintings as well. You don't know that Salvator Mundi was actually painted by Leonardo da Vinci (maybe his gardener painted it and he lied to everyone saying it was him), or maybe he actually painted it several times. Perhaps one day we'll find evidence that the gardener actually painted it, or we'll find additional "original" copies, and suddenly the value of our current "original" will be reduced.
chime 5y ago
Precisely. When you license a digital asset, it has licensing terms associated with it - single entity use, multiple entity use, allowed form of media etc. Getty would sell me a new NFT for any asset I want to license and embed that signature in the asset I download. Even if current NFTs don't support everything, the blockchain algo could be extended incorporate the needs of the parties involved.
kibwen 5y ago
And how do you associate a given NFT as being issued by the true owner of a real-world asset? The answer: by trusting a centralized external authority to verify the association. And if you're already trusting that centralized authority, what's even the point of the NFT?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Can you determine the authenticity of a physical painting, or would you trust experts?
  - manigandham 5y ago
    That's not related to this at all.
lottin 5y ago
Of course it's problematic. That's why most countries have land and vehicle registries managed by a trusted authority. If people had to rely on titles of ownership issued by random strangers it'd be chaos.
manigandham 5y ago
Contracts only hold power because of the government which can adjudicate and enforce the laws. How those contracts are written, whether it's on paper or on the blockchain, is the least interesting part of it all. NFTs add no value that existing recordkeeping cant already do (usually much better and faster).
TomSwirly 5y ago
> I think it's pretty clear from the proposal that the only relevant NFT for some piece of digital media would be the NFT created by the original copyright holder of that piece of digital media. So in order for the NFT to work, you need some sort of way to identify the copyright holder before the NFT even exists. Don't see you the issue? If you can identify the copyright holder of a work without an NFT, what's the point of the NFT?