15 ms·
This topic turned up a week ago. [0] Personally I like the analogy to baseball cards. From [0]: > Owning an NFT generally doesn't grant you copyrights over the
by MaxBarraclough 5y ago
This topic turned up a week ago. [0] Personally I like the analogy to baseball cards. From [0]:
> Owning an NFT generally doesn't grant you copyrights over the underlying work of art. Owning a baseball card doesn't mean the athlete now works for you. They can both still have value as collectible items, if that's something that interests you.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29050802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29050802
- tempestn 5y agoHowever with a baseball card you do own the card. With an NFT you don't even own the digital item, nor is it intrinsically associated with a blockchain entry that you can prove ownership of. You basically own a link to a url which for some period of time will hopefully point at the jpg (or whatever it is).
- jobigoud 5y agoWith the baseball card you own a particular print of an image. Doesn't grant you any rights over the original image, there are many other copies of it, the image can be reproduced at will by anyone, etc. It's not that different. The card might be signed by the athlete, in wich case it gains value, but that signature might be a forgery, etc. Collectible NFTs is like owning just the autograph bit.
- tempestn 5y agoK, taking this analogy further, I guess if you imagine a card with no real value except for the player's signature... except instead of signing the card, the player signs a scrap of paper that you then tape to the card.