3 ms·

> But because anybody else can sell anybody else very similar NFTs it looks like the supply is infinite. People only want to pay for the NFT, because it is sup

> But because anybody else can sell anybody else very similar NFTs it looks like the supply is infinite. People only want to pay for the NFT, because it is supposed to represent a desirable piece of art. The only person who has the moral authority to sell it is the artist. Anyone can create an NFT that "links" to some piece of art they found online, but if I am not the artist, why would anyone pay me for it? Additionally of course, there are artists whose work is more desired, so they command a premium over other artists.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
I can see a way it could make sense. The NFT contains text that declares what the buyer of it gets. For instance they get the right to use the digital art on their website. And maybe a right to sell that right to someone else if they stop using it on their website. If I tried to create such an NFT from someone else's art that would be fraud if I don't own the copyright to that art. Is that how it works in practice? Do NFTs (typically) include immutable text which clearly spells out what rights are transferred to the buyer of the NFT? And because the text of the NFT is in the blockchain which can not easily be forged, courts will accept that fact as evidence of a binding contract?
- miracle2k 5y ago
  > Do NFTs (typically) include immutable text which clearly spells out what rights are transferred to the buyer of the NFT? This can be included immutably on-chain. Mostly it is done off-chain, which is ok, because enforcement of any such license would happen off-chain and in courts anyway. Frequently, no license details are given at all, which may also be ok, because people who collect fine art aren't doing it for the use value ("I need a stock photo for my landing page"), they are doing it because they feel good about being an art collector. In that sense, very limited use-rights are actually required.
  - shagie 5y ago
    > In that sense, very limited use-rights are actually required Specifically, what use rights does an NFT grant? For photographs (and I have a small gallery of them collected over the years in art festivals and galleries), they're hanging on my wall... though I can't publicly display them (that's part of the copyright). If I sell a print of a digital image (that I captured with a camera) and I sell a NFT of the same digital image, what are the differences in the use rights that the two buyers have? If the digital image, hosted on a server that I maintain goes offline (I didn't pay my network solutions bill and someone else buys the domain), what does does the NFT retain rights to?
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      The NFT is just an entry in a ledger. What rights the buyer has to the intellectual property that is your photo is decided by your respective jurisdictions. In general, I would think this is largely up to you - i.e. only the rights you explicitly granted. However, I believe in the US, there is no right to even download a copy of a file on the internet for purely personal reasons. I could see an NFT buyer successfully argue in court that this right is implied, even if not specified. What happens if the file goes offline? I would think that this will not effect an existing license that you have previously granted. Of course, the buyer may struggle to make use of their license rights if they did not retain a copy of the image themselves.
      - shagie 5y ago
        > In general, I would think this is largely up to you - i.e. only the rights you explicitly granted. Do you have any examples of an NFT that grant rights accompanied by TOS terms for minting the NFT that affirm that it is the original artist or someone who is authorized to do so who is creating it? > However, I believe in the US, there is no right to even download a copy of a file on the internet for purely personal reasons. There is de minimis which isn't so much a right but rather a "this is beneath the concern of the law". As to the US aspect, every country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention ) recognizes the minimum standard for protection which includes the right to to make replications or display to the public that is held as part of copyright. For an NFT, would a baseball card be an acceptable comparison for what it represents in the real world? To that end, I would contend that the same thing happens to it when the player that it represents (there is no ownership conveyed in a baseball card beyond the card itself) leaves the game.

galaxyLogic 5y ago

I can see a way it could make sense. The NFT contains text that declares what the buyer of it gets. For instance they get the right to use the digital art on their website. And maybe a right to sell that right to someone else if they stop using it on their website. If I tried to create such an NFT from someone else's art that would be fraud if I don't own the copyright to that art. Is that how it works in practice? Do NFTs (typically) include immutable text which clearly spells out what rights are transferred to the buyer of the NFT? And because the text of the NFT is in the blockchain which can not easily be forged, courts will accept that fact as evidence of a binding contract?

miracle2k 5y ago
> Do NFTs (typically) include immutable text which clearly spells out what rights are transferred to the buyer of the NFT? This can be included immutably on-chain. Mostly it is done off-chain, which is ok, because enforcement of any such license would happen off-chain and in courts anyway. Frequently, no license details are given at all, which may also be ok, because people who collect fine art aren't doing it for the use value ("I need a stock photo for my landing page"), they are doing it because they feel good about being an art collector. In that sense, very limited use-rights are actually required.
- shagie 5y ago
  > In that sense, very limited use-rights are actually required Specifically, what use rights does an NFT grant? For photographs (and I have a small gallery of them collected over the years in art festivals and galleries), they're hanging on my wall... though I can't publicly display them (that's part of the copyright). If I sell a print of a digital image (that I captured with a camera) and I sell a NFT of the same digital image, what are the differences in the use rights that the two buyers have? If the digital image, hosted on a server that I maintain goes offline (I didn't pay my network solutions bill and someone else buys the domain), what does does the NFT retain rights to?
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    The NFT is just an entry in a ledger. What rights the buyer has to the intellectual property that is your photo is decided by your respective jurisdictions. In general, I would think this is largely up to you - i.e. only the rights you explicitly granted. However, I believe in the US, there is no right to even download a copy of a file on the internet for purely personal reasons. I could see an NFT buyer successfully argue in court that this right is implied, even if not specified. What happens if the file goes offline? I would think that this will not effect an existing license that you have previously granted. Of course, the buyer may struggle to make use of their license rights if they did not retain a copy of the image themselves.
    - shagie 5y ago
      > In general, I would think this is largely up to you - i.e. only the rights you explicitly granted. Do you have any examples of an NFT that grant rights accompanied by TOS terms for minting the NFT that affirm that it is the original artist or someone who is authorized to do so who is creating it? > However, I believe in the US, there is no right to even download a copy of a file on the internet for purely personal reasons. There is de minimis which isn't so much a right but rather a "this is beneath the concern of the law". As to the US aspect, every country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention ) recognizes the minimum standard for protection which includes the right to to make replications or display to the public that is held as part of copyright. For an NFT, would a baseball card be an acceptable comparison for what it represents in the real world? To that end, I would contend that the same thing happens to it when the player that it represents (there is no ownership conveyed in a baseball card beyond the card itself) leaves the game.