5 ms·
> He called for cryptocurrency exchanges not to allow further sales of his stolen art as he tried to track down the buyer who ended up with one of his most priz
by jef_leppard 4y ago
> He called for cryptocurrency exchanges not to allow further sales of his stolen art as he tried to track down the buyer who ended up with one of his most prized possessions: Bored Ape #8398, a drawing of a sad monkey with a halo in a Phoebe Bridgers-style skeleton shirt
The jokes they write themselves.
- draw_down 4y ago
- amluto 4y agoBut somehow it’s real? > Since the NFT was stolen, Green lost the right to use it in his show. Under what law or other principle does using a picture in a show rely on an entry in a blockchain? Or is the risk that ignoring the NFT and the using the IP anyway might further pop the NFT bubble?
- hungryforcodes 4y agoNothing of course. But obviously he's trying to shape the narrative in his favor.
- d13 4y agoThose particular NFTs include the copyright. (Not all NFTs do.)
- pbhjpbhj 4y agoBut not intrinsically, if it was stolen then you could just use the image to mint a new NFT, declare the other one as stolen -- maybe make an affidavit, or use some legal instrument -- then you've "unstolen" it. They're choosing to consider it as non-fungible, continuing that choice in order to deny yourself legal use of your property is not just drinking the cool-aid but bathing in it too. Of course this could be intentional, as others have said, it furthers the narrative that NFTs are genuinely non-fungible.
- chitowneats 4y agoBathing in Kool-Aid is a great line. Hope you don't mind if I steal it.
- eganist 4y agoDo one better. Mint it.
- pbhjpbhj 4y agoIt's completely fungible, theft is impossible! ;o)
- chitowneats 4y agoTouche!
- smachiz 4y agoWhat's even more amazing is that the person in possession of it would have to identify themselves to bring an infringement claim... At which point they're open to theft charges. Bathing in kool aid indeed.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoThey could construct a sale transaction to themselves, which leads to the charge being mere possession of stolen property. Of course, if the recipient of the property had no knowledge that it was stolen, and just thought they were getting a good deal, I'm not sure a crime would have been committed at all.
- smachiz 4y agoThat would also result in the return of the property to the original owner once identified. Maybe no one gets prosecuted if they’re clever, but they would be compelled to return it (or then face possession of stolen property charges and contempt of court)
- KerrAvon 4y agoIANAL, but that’s not how copyright law works. Stealing a painting does not give you the copyright.
- maleldil 4y agoI'm in way over my head here, but in your painting example, the thief would steal the object, not the ownership proof. In the Ape case, the NFT is the owernship proof, so it's like the thief stole whatever document said you owned the painting. Since there's no 3rd party to verify that a legitimate transaction happened, the thief owns the Ape now.
- 07d046 4y agoThis sounds like the same level of understanding about copyright law that led one NFT group to spend $3m on a rare Dune art book thinking it would give them the IP rights to the art.
- Animats 4y agoYes. The thief is unlikely to make a copyright claim. Green probably won't be able to get into NYC Apefest, which starts Monday. Which is the only actual benefit that comes from holding a BAYC NFT. Although, at age 48, he probably is too old for a rave.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]