6 ms·

Can't NFT's be linked with copyright ownership? The whole story about "Charlie bit my finger" NFT suggests that there could be a legal link. If not now, maybe l

Can't NFT's be linked with copyright ownership? The whole story about "Charlie bit my finger" NFT suggests that there could be a legal link. If not now, maybe laws could be adapted to support it. So let's assume the law supports linking NTF's to copyright ownership. What would be the scammy part then?

Jensson 5y ago
If you manage to get legally accepted copyright contracts into a crypto then that has value, yes. But NFT's aren't that.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  Are you sure? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems copyright is basically "whatever you can prove in court". The family of "Charlie Bit My Finger" sold that video through an NFT. So I wonder if the family would still use that video, and the NFT owner would sue them... who would win. I would actually think the NFT owner. See https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-57227290 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-57227290
  - robjan 5y ago
    The owner of the NFT was allocated a license to display the NFT and sell it but not ownership rights of the underlying media. Based on the wording, if you sell it the rights are terminated and not transferred to the new owner. https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms
  - Jensson 5y ago
    If the auction contract says they own the media then they own the media. It has nothing to do with the NFT, if the NFT buyer then gave away the NFT and the auction was seen as a valid purchase of the media the purchaser would still retain the media rights. My point was, if the media rights could really be tied to the NFT rather than the auction contract then you would have something of value, but right now it would just be "Here is an action for media rights. Oh and btw here is also an unrelated hash you get with the purchase". As is for the media rights to go with the NFT you'd need to write a similar contract for every trade. At which point the NFT is totally superfluous, why not just write normal contracts skipping the NFT?

Jensson 5y ago

If you manage to get legally accepted copyright contracts into a crypto then that has value, yes. But NFT's aren't that.

koonsolo 5y ago
Are you sure? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems copyright is basically "whatever you can prove in court". The family of "Charlie Bit My Finger" sold that video through an NFT. So I wonder if the family would still use that video, and the NFT owner would sue them... who would win. I would actually think the NFT owner. See https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-57227290 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-57227290
- robjan 5y ago
  The owner of the NFT was allocated a license to display the NFT and sell it but not ownership rights of the underlying media. Based on the wording, if you sell it the rights are terminated and not transferred to the new owner. https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms
- Jensson 5y ago
  If the auction contract says they own the media then they own the media. It has nothing to do with the NFT, if the NFT buyer then gave away the NFT and the auction was seen as a valid purchase of the media the purchaser would still retain the media rights. My point was, if the media rights could really be tied to the NFT rather than the auction contract then you would have something of value, but right now it would just be "Here is an action for media rights. Oh and btw here is also an unrelated hash you get with the purchase". As is for the media rights to go with the NFT you'd need to write a similar contract for every trade. At which point the NFT is totally superfluous, why not just write normal contracts skipping the NFT?