4 ms·

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 re

by 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.
  - lottin 5y ago
    We were talking about ownership, not authorship. In the real world titles of ownership are issued by a trusted third party. They're not issued by the same party who claims ownership. But in the NFT world they are, and this means these titles of ownership can't be trusted. There's no way of assessing whether they're valid or not.
Marsymars 5y ago
This doesn't really seem compatible with first-sale doctrine and how copyright around images works. If I want to buy licensed Hulk coffee mugs from any source, and resell them, Disney doesn't have any rights.
root_axis 5y ago
Why not just sign the assets with a private key and verify its authenticity with the public key? What is the purpose of bolting a blockchain onto this idea?
TomSwirly 5y ago
> If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. Great! We agree! People have been signing digital assets for thirty years now, and it clearly works well. So why use the NFT? > Disney could absolutely start signing all of their media with NFT and every license holder would have X years to implement it properly. Or Disney could just start signing all their works _today_ without an NFT or blockchain of any type, using proven, decades-old, open source technology. --- The blockchain is amazing because it solves a very difficult problem - the consensus problem. Yes, blockchains are very expensive, but that's because they need to solve that hard problem. If you have a consensus problem, the blockchain is the only known solution to it. Signing assets is NOT a consensus problem, because the origin of the idea of ownership comes from the real world. When Disney signs their assets, it makes no difference what order they sign them in, or whether they sign them before or after someone else does. For example, suppose Disney decides to sign everything, and then someone else "signs" Mary Poppins before Disney gets to it. Nothing happens! This signature has no legal, moral, or practical value to anyone: Disney _legally_ owns Mary Poppins and will continue to do so. Or suppose a hacker breaks into the network and "signs" ownership of Poppins to Elon Musk. Again, this has no legal, moral or practical value. There is no hint of a consensus issue, and therefore the incredible cost of a blockchain is completely wasted here.

by chime 5y ago

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.
- lottin 5y ago
  We were talking about ownership, not authorship. In the real world titles of ownership are issued by a trusted third party. They're not issued by the same party who claims ownership. But in the NFT world they are, and this means these titles of ownership can't be trusted. There's no way of assessing whether they're valid or not.

Marsymars 5y ago

This doesn't really seem compatible with first-sale doctrine and how copyright around images works. If I want to buy licensed Hulk coffee mugs from any source, and resell them, Disney doesn't have any rights.

root_axis 5y ago

Why not just sign the assets with a private key and verify its authenticity with the public key? What is the purpose of bolting a blockchain onto this idea?

TomSwirly 5y ago

> If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. Great! We agree! People have been signing digital assets for thirty years now, and it clearly works well. So why use the NFT? > Disney could absolutely start signing all of their media with NFT and every license holder would have X years to implement it properly. Or Disney could just start signing all their works _today_ without an NFT or blockchain of any type, using proven, decades-old, open source technology. --- The blockchain is amazing because it solves a very difficult problem - the consensus problem. Yes, blockchains are very expensive, but that's because they need to solve that hard problem. If you have a consensus problem, the blockchain is the only known solution to it. Signing assets is NOT a consensus problem, because the origin of the idea of ownership comes from the real world. When Disney signs their assets, it makes no difference what order they sign them in, or whether they sign them before or after someone else does. For example, suppose Disney decides to sign everything, and then someone else "signs" Mary Poppins before Disney gets to it. Nothing happens! This signature has no legal, moral, or practical value to anyone: Disney _legally_ owns Mary Poppins and will continue to do so. Or suppose a hacker breaks into the network and "signs" ownership of Poppins to Elon Musk. Again, this has no legal, moral or practical value. There is no hint of a consensus issue, and therefore the incredible cost of a blockchain is completely wasted here.