3 ms·

> If you own an NFT, you have no more rights over the media than someone who doesn’t own an NFT. False. Just like open source software, the devil is in the det

> If you own an NFT, you have no more rights over the media than someone who doesn’t own an NFT. False. Just like open source software, the devil is in the details (usually the LICENSE.md file). NFT projects vary dramatically in the rights they convey to holders. To the extent that these meatspace rights are enforceable, some convey commercial use, some convey personal use, some are published as creative commons, and some are ambiguous. The NFT space is rather immature compared to open source software, however. The ambiguity is a real problem. The space would do well to standardize on licenses and stamp that on the NFT's metadata. But in the meantime, by convention in Web3, the apps and websites that integrate NFTs respect the ownership and provide verification of ownership for integrations, such as virtual art galleries, exclusive events or areas in Decentraland, profile pic verification on ENS, wallet gallery on OpenSea, avatars in Sandbox, etc. By convention, web3 marketplaces also respect royalties with original artists on resales. NFTs are tokens that can be used and verified as arbitrary authentication tokens for anything, whether it be a real life event or product or access to some software or other virtual benefit.

newhouseb 5y ago
From a recent conversation with a (soon to be) lawyer [as I understand it] software typically uses what's called a "shrink wrap contract" [1] wherein the _usage_ of the product implicitly accepts a license. As far as I can tell, nothing in the ERC721 standard (for example) has any provision for such a legal instrument to be included. As such, I don't see how NFT "ownership" can (currently) be construed to possess any legal rights whatsoever unless agreed upon externally to the NFT in which case... what value is the NFT adding? Would love to get a proper legal teardown of this space. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract [2] All this said, I could see a world where an NFT smart contract requires a cryptographically signed _legal_ contract to be hashed into the transfer as a form of legal consent. But for some reason this isn't yet reality.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  Similar to buying a signed print from an artist—no contract involved, no legal transfer of copyright or intellectual property, no claim to anything except ownership of the artist-signed artefact. In the case of NFT it is mostly equivalent: claim of ownership over the artist-signed artefact (the token).
  - zepto 5y ago
    Exactly this. Which is fine. What isn’t fine is when people pretend that the ownership is over the media itself.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      Most collectors aren't claiming to own the media (because anybody can right-click save it, and because it is usually hosted on IPFS, the very purpose of which is to allow the media to be copied & distributed across many nodes). But they may claim to own "the artwork," referring to the artist-signed artefact. Much like how a museum may choose to acquire & build provenance around a signed photographic print, despite the availability of unsigned prints that depict the same exact media (see Ansel Adams signed vs unsigned prints, for example).
      - nickitolas 5y ago
        imo anyone claiming to "own the artwork" when talking about widely available digital media is talking about copyright, and if they're talking about something else, they're high
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Jerrrry 5y ago
NFT would be better explained if they used the older word: certificate. But if we called NFT's 'certificates,' then less would buy into the Tulip mania. NFT's are just a digest of certificates, public/private key pairs, and a chain of hashes. If Lebron James put out a limited run digital model of himself, a set of hashes and schema describing the signatures, and released the certificates for purchase on Nike.com,then all the legal, authorized implementers, such as Fortnite, CS:Go, Roblox, and Halo:Infinite could all render the model, respect the ownership (or lack therof) by validating the account and object's cryptographic digest (comparing against a global ownership ledger), and allow free, unrestricted, cross-domain/platform/Intellectual property boundary transfership and use, aligning with meatspace laws... ...all without calling it an NFT.
zepto 5y ago
>> If you own an NFT, you have no more rights over the media than someone who doesn’t own an NFT. > False. Really? The original poster says: > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. > NFT projects vary dramatically in the rights they convey to holders. To the extent that these meatspace rights are enforceable NFT’s don’t convey enforceable meatspace rights.

newhouseb 5y ago

From a recent conversation with a (soon to be) lawyer [as I understand it] software typically uses what's called a "shrink wrap contract" [1] wherein the _usage_ of the product implicitly accepts a license. As far as I can tell, nothing in the ERC721 standard (for example) has any provision for such a legal instrument to be included. As such, I don't see how NFT "ownership" can (currently) be construed to possess any legal rights whatsoever unless agreed upon externally to the NFT in which case... what value is the NFT adding? Would love to get a proper legal teardown of this space. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract [2] All this said, I could see a world where an NFT smart contract requires a cryptographically signed _legal_ contract to be hashed into the transfer as a form of legal consent. But for some reason this isn't yet reality.

mattdesl 5y ago
Similar to buying a signed print from an artist—no contract involved, no legal transfer of copyright or intellectual property, no claim to anything except ownership of the artist-signed artefact. In the case of NFT it is mostly equivalent: claim of ownership over the artist-signed artefact (the token).
- zepto 5y ago
  Exactly this. Which is fine. What isn’t fine is when people pretend that the ownership is over the media itself.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    Most collectors aren't claiming to own the media (because anybody can right-click save it, and because it is usually hosted on IPFS, the very purpose of which is to allow the media to be copied & distributed across many nodes). But they may claim to own "the artwork," referring to the artist-signed artefact. Much like how a museum may choose to acquire & build provenance around a signed photographic print, despite the availability of unsigned prints that depict the same exact media (see Ansel Adams signed vs unsigned prints, for example).
    - nickitolas 5y ago
      imo anyone claiming to "own the artwork" when talking about widely available digital media is talking about copyright, and if they're talking about something else, they're high
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Jerrrry 5y ago

NFT would be better explained if they used the older word: certificate. But if we called NFT's 'certificates,' then less would buy into the Tulip mania. NFT's are just a digest of certificates, public/private key pairs, and a chain of hashes. If Lebron James put out a limited run digital model of himself, a set of hashes and schema describing the signatures, and released the certificates for purchase on Nike.com,then all the legal, authorized implementers, such as Fortnite, CS:Go, Roblox, and Halo:Infinite could all render the model, respect the ownership (or lack therof) by validating the account and object's cryptographic digest (comparing against a global ownership ledger), and allow free, unrestricted, cross-domain/platform/Intellectual property boundary transfership and use, aligning with meatspace laws... ...all without calling it an NFT.

zepto 5y ago

>> If you own an NFT, you have no more rights over the media than someone who doesn’t own an NFT. > False. Really? The original poster says: > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. > NFT projects vary dramatically in the rights they convey to holders. To the extent that these meatspace rights are enforceable NFT’s don’t convey enforceable meatspace rights.