8 ms·

> Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his restaurant. Wow. I can't imagine what an

> Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his restaurant. Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.

foogazi 4y ago
Reminds me of that service that would let you “name” a star
raylad 4y ago
That actually doesn't apply to Bored Apes. With those NFTs you get copyright ownership of the image.
- pueblito 4y ago
  No, with copyright law you get ownership, the nft is just a public receipt
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    The copyright holder is free to write up a license that says the current holder of the NFT may use it as if they hold the copyright, though. Many NFTs don’t, but it’s possible.
    - knorker 4y ago
      But nothing guarantees that the seller of the NFT, the current holder of the NFT, is also the current copyright holder. It's basically completely disconnected, so while the transfers may traditionally be done at the same time between the same entities, that's not a contract. The NFT just gives you a Blockchain url. If you didn't sign anything else then you got nothing else.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        In the case of BAYC specifically, though, the contract guarantees that. https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms > When you purchase an NFT, you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely. > Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”).
        knorker 4y ago
        > you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely. No, you just have a license to use it according to a license. That's very clearly "not owning". It's something, but it's not owning.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Did you miss the first part? The original copyright owner is explicitly saying in their terms that you get ownership. You’re just restricted by contract to pass on said ownership if you sell. It’s like a house with a homeowners association. Can’t ditch the HOA by selling. Still own the house.
        knorker 4y ago
        This is all legal theatre to distract from the fact that there is no ownership change. Which is what I said. You yourself said that all you get is a license, not ownership. That is not even remotely close to the legal basis under which HOAs have power, which is a lien on the house, not with you. House: You bought a house with an HOA lien. NFT: You licensed (do not own) an image. Like YOU quoted there is no ownership change at any point. These are not even remotely similar.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    Remember the case of the crypto guys who bought a physical copy of Dune worth $40,000 for $3 million and thought that gave them the rights to make an animated series out of it? Good times. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a38815538/dune-crypto-nft-sale-mistake-explained/ https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a38815538/dune-c...
- remram 4y ago
  You get copyright on a software-generated image? What's the point?
  - jameshart 4y ago
    Good point - the individual ape may not even be a copyrightable image.
  - teekert 4y ago
    This has nothing to do with copyright. You own a piece of the blockchain, sad thing is that thing is not even an image or anything, its a url, and its target can change. It’s like a collective delusion. This emperor has no clothes, but still mant people choose to believe.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      No one ever believed. Other than crypto tech bros on HN shilling it all day. Take a look at what the general public thinks. They saw it as a scam on day one, and continued to see it as a scam which is why all the consumer product companies failed to have their NFT products take off.
- neilalexander 4y ago
  In many NFTs, the content itself is not covered by a hash (although the URL pointing to it is) so it would be incredibly difficult to prove that “ownership” in any case?
  - imachine1980_ 4y ago
    Would be more fun to ddos the hosting, or buy the domain
- rejor121 4y ago
  Would that hold in a court of law?
- jameshart 4y ago
  Are you sure? Certainly the first person to buy a bored ape from BAYC, they definitely entered into a legal contract with BAYC that granted them a copyright license. But if you bought a Bored Ape NFT from someone else, did the sale contract you made with them definitely include another copyright license transfer? Or did you just buy an NFT? What if the previous owner of your Bored Ape, while they held the copyright, took it upon themselves to separately sell the copyright to someone else, so by the time you bought the NFT, they didn't even have the copyright any more? What if the previous owner of the Ape, as its copyright holder, and perhaps unknown to you, chose to release it to the public domain?
  - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
    I don't think they're transferring the copyright but granting IP and commercial rights to the NFT holder. As many of the other commenters are pointing out, this isn't the typical way NFT's work but some are like this. Just like some NFT's don't point to a url but either are stored on chain (cryptopunks) or via content-based addressing (IPFS hash). https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220311005470/en/Yuga-Labs-Acquires-CryptoPunks-and-Meebits-from-Larva-Labs-Grants-IP-and-Commercial-Rights-to-Individual-Owners https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220311005470/en/Yug...
    - jameshart 4y ago
      The problem is when you buy a second hand bored ape, you don’t have any direct contract with BAYC. They might be able to enforce terms of their original contract on the first party buyer - ‘once you sell the ape you no longer have this license’. But they have no contractual relationship (no ‘privity’) with you. Perhaps possession of the ape entitled you to go to BAYC and get a license contract? That’s great, so long as BAYC 1) continues to honor that agreement (and since you have no contract with them to begin with there’s nothing obliging them to do so) and 2) continues to exist. If they go under and their copyright in their apes gets auctioned off, good luck finding whoever acquired your ape and persuading them that since you own a hash in a blockchain they really have to grant you a license to use that ape.
- Bjartr 4y ago
  It's more complicated than that. > The Bored Ape Yacht Club terms of service grant a commercial license to exploit the copyright of each Bored Ape to the owner of the relevant NFT. So the holder of a Bored Ape NFT has a license to commercially use the off-chain image associated with the NFT by way of an on-chain URL. That license is granted by the actual copyright holders of all of the Bored Apes.
  - vba616 4y ago
    Yes, of course. Just like you can create anything, and license it as you wish, and keep a list of authorized licensees on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape. The NFTs are better because...
    - lupire 4y ago
      NFT provides a decentralized way to transfer the ownership in a globally visible way. Look, I hate cryptoc, but this is about the one thing in the whole world that NFT is actually good for.
      - vba616 4y ago
        How is it decentralized? Perhaps people use the word differently. I don't understand the word "decentralized" to mean "not occupying a specific physical location". To me it means more like "having many independent parts" or "not having a single point of failure". For example, land titles in the US, I believe, are decentralized. There is not one single national/federal list of who owns what. But having a blockchain is like having that list. I don't know if that is "centralized" in an absolute, yes/no way, but it seems more centralized.
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        And this is important because? It doesn’t need to be globally visible. If I sell you ownership, I can do that via email or a piece of paper. And then when it’s disputed you can bring up the email and transaction receipt. And it doesn’t even require an entire countries worth of electricity to do it.
- addicted 4y ago
  Even if that’s the case, does anyone think procedurally generated computer art of Bored Apes would be worth even a fraction of a few dollars if it wasn’t for crypto marketing making people believe they can sell it for much more? In other words, the only value these things have is the belief that a bigger sucker will come around who will pay even more for it. And has it actually been copyrighted with the USPTO and the various copy protection agencies across the world? Because if not, then who will actually enforce it and what legal backing does that copyright have? And if it has been copyrighted, then what value does putting it on a blockchain add when the copyright enforcement is being maintained by the same entities that would have done it if it was on Shutterstock?
  - GuB-42 4y ago
    Speculation is one thing, and I think it is what drives the costs to such ridiculous extremes. However, I don't think it explains all of the value. First is the art itself, probably not worth much considering that it is rather generic and partly generated art, but some people may actually like it. Then there is the idea of being part of something big. Some people think that NFTs are revolutionary, that in the future, this is what will represent property, more than a paper in some administrative office. Owning a NFT now is like owning a piece of history. And there is also this idea that many collectors share that if it is rare and unique, it is worth having, and apes are rare and unique. I know some collectors who spend thousands on collectable items, like video game cartridges or trading cards with no intention to ever sell them back. It is their treasure, it represents a lot of dedication and effort, they may have memories attached to it. It may sound stupid to outsiders but it is important.
    - hnthrow1010 4y ago
      I would have no problem with NFTs if they were simply billed as a useless "collectible" thing sitting in an account that you can use as an excuse to show off how you donated to an artist. But from that perspective, you don't need blockchains or smart contracts; the only thing needed is a donations platform like Patreon. The ridiculous nonsense about how NFTs are going to be "rare unique property" and "an investment" is a pure grift. It is shameful to see artists repeating those lies just to make a dollar. You are getting nothing from them. At least with trading cards you technically do get a picture you can look at, and maybe you could use them for enjoyment to play a game. With NFTs you are literally getting nothing. They are designed to seize the minds of people who have that "collector" personality and take advantage of them.
- axlee 4y ago
  So...from the government? Great work at decentralizing.
- taylorius 4y ago
  What use is the copyright ownership? Does anyone have any interest in the images, other than their speculative "value" as an NFT? I can't imagine anyone being able to (for example) sell posters or prints of a bored ape. Or is my imagination simply lacking?
- dools 4y ago
  You mean you need a legal framework to enforce ownership of crypto assets? Who’da thunkit
abxytg 4y ago
It's not hard. "Surely this will appreciate, I am a genius"
- pwillia7 4y ago
  It's FOMO because they knew people that bought at something you would feel is ridiculous and sold for 40x or whatever and so they convince themselves the same thing will happen. I think this is less crazy than the first round of buyers after the initial pop.
Uptrenda 4y ago
It works fine with actual art but I've yet to see an NFT comparable to say: the Mona Lisa. When I got into the blockchain space ~9 years ago I would have never imagined years later people would be going crazy over pictures of jpegs. People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  is that because physical paints can't be immediately copied like a sequence of bits can?
  - yawnxyz 4y ago
    but you can order a print of the Mona Lisa very easily for like $15
    - cratermoon 4y ago
      The loss of fidelity between the physical original and a $15 print is comparable to 10,000 generations of jpg decoding and re-encoding.
      - iamacyborg 4y ago
        The original you see today isn’t the original that would have been seen immediately after it was painted. Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find yourself in the Louvre, look at what’s hung on the opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.
        jjtheblunt 4y ago
        (totally agree, and found myself laughing reading this)
        spapas82 4y ago
        In case anyone wonders which is the painting... http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/painting/6/ http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/paint...
chaostheory 4y ago
Are we sure that those weren’t wash trades?
adrr 4y ago
How do NFTs work with copyright laws? Does owning an NFT grant you rights and how does that work with copyright law?
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  The short answers are: they don't, no, and it doesn't. Some NFTs do have a separate legal document saying you get a copyright license (or maybe even the copyright) if you "own" the NFT, but this is not required, and is entirely separate from the NFT. The author could very easily mint multiple NFTs of the same thing or just sell more licenses of the same thing on the side; if you look into the fine print of any NFT marketplace they will say straight out that you are not actually getting any exclusive ownership of anything unless the seller explicitly says so in separate legal terms. And even then, it usually is on the buyer to do any due diligence to make sure that the copyright actually belongs to them and the artwork isn't ripped off.
- breakfastduck 4y ago
  No, it does not because the NFT is a receipt. You are literally buying a receipt for your purchase of... a receipt.
- D13Fd 4y ago
  I expect NFTs are most analogous to owning a copy of a work, not the copyright. So you pay $330k and you get rights equivalent to prints of a piece of art. This may come with an implied right to publicly display the art, or may not, and that right may be limited in some ways. And, like a print, you can keep and treasure your NFT or re-sell it. But you don’t own the copyright and can’t make more prints unless there was a separate agreement to that effect.
Spooky23 4y ago
I remember when my nine year old commented on the YouTuber “What’s inside” guy trading a Tesla for some NFT - “dad, that’s really dumb”

foogazi 4y ago

Reminds me of that service that would let you “name” a star

raylad 4y ago

That actually doesn't apply to Bored Apes. With those NFTs you get copyright ownership of the image.

pueblito 4y ago
No, with copyright law you get ownership, the nft is just a public receipt
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The copyright holder is free to write up a license that says the current holder of the NFT may use it as if they hold the copyright, though. Many NFTs don’t, but it’s possible.
  - knorker 4y ago
    But nothing guarantees that the seller of the NFT, the current holder of the NFT, is also the current copyright holder. It's basically completely disconnected, so while the transfers may traditionally be done at the same time between the same entities, that's not a contract. The NFT just gives you a Blockchain url. If you didn't sign anything else then you got nothing else.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      In the case of BAYC specifically, though, the contract guarantees that. https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms > When you purchase an NFT, you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely. > Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”).
      - knorker 4y ago
        > you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely. No, you just have a license to use it according to a license. That's very clearly "not owning". It's something, but it's not owning.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Did you miss the first part? The original copyright owner is explicitly saying in their terms that you get ownership. You’re just restricted by contract to pass on said ownership if you sell. It’s like a house with a homeowners association. Can’t ditch the HOA by selling. Still own the house.
        knorker 4y ago
        This is all legal theatre to distract from the fact that there is no ownership change. Which is what I said. You yourself said that all you get is a license, not ownership. That is not even remotely close to the legal basis under which HOAs have power, which is a lien on the house, not with you. House: You bought a house with an HOA lien. NFT: You licensed (do not own) an image. Like YOU quoted there is no ownership change at any point. These are not even remotely similar.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  Remember the case of the crypto guys who bought a physical copy of Dune worth $40,000 for $3 million and thought that gave them the rights to make an animated series out of it? Good times. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a38815538/dune-crypto-nft-sale-mistake-explained/ https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a38815538/dune-c...
remram 4y ago
You get copyright on a software-generated image? What's the point?
- jameshart 4y ago
  Good point - the individual ape may not even be a copyrightable image.
- teekert 4y ago
  This has nothing to do with copyright. You own a piece of the blockchain, sad thing is that thing is not even an image or anything, its a url, and its target can change. It’s like a collective delusion. This emperor has no clothes, but still mant people choose to believe.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    No one ever believed. Other than crypto tech bros on HN shilling it all day. Take a look at what the general public thinks. They saw it as a scam on day one, and continued to see it as a scam which is why all the consumer product companies failed to have their NFT products take off.
neilalexander 4y ago
In many NFTs, the content itself is not covered by a hash (although the URL pointing to it is) so it would be incredibly difficult to prove that “ownership” in any case?
- imachine1980_ 4y ago
  Would be more fun to ddos the hosting, or buy the domain
rejor121 4y ago
Would that hold in a court of law?
jameshart 4y ago
Are you sure? Certainly the first person to buy a bored ape from BAYC, they definitely entered into a legal contract with BAYC that granted them a copyright license. But if you bought a Bored Ape NFT from someone else, did the sale contract you made with them definitely include another copyright license transfer? Or did you just buy an NFT? What if the previous owner of your Bored Ape, while they held the copyright, took it upon themselves to separately sell the copyright to someone else, so by the time you bought the NFT, they didn't even have the copyright any more? What if the previous owner of the Ape, as its copyright holder, and perhaps unknown to you, chose to release it to the public domain?
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  I don't think they're transferring the copyright but granting IP and commercial rights to the NFT holder. As many of the other commenters are pointing out, this isn't the typical way NFT's work but some are like this. Just like some NFT's don't point to a url but either are stored on chain (cryptopunks) or via content-based addressing (IPFS hash). https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220311005470/en/Yuga-Labs-Acquires-CryptoPunks-and-Meebits-from-Larva-Labs-Grants-IP-and-Commercial-Rights-to-Individual-Owners https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220311005470/en/Yug...
  - jameshart 4y ago
    The problem is when you buy a second hand bored ape, you don’t have any direct contract with BAYC. They might be able to enforce terms of their original contract on the first party buyer - ‘once you sell the ape you no longer have this license’. But they have no contractual relationship (no ‘privity’) with you. Perhaps possession of the ape entitled you to go to BAYC and get a license contract? That’s great, so long as BAYC 1) continues to honor that agreement (and since you have no contract with them to begin with there’s nothing obliging them to do so) and 2) continues to exist. If they go under and their copyright in their apes gets auctioned off, good luck finding whoever acquired your ape and persuading them that since you own a hash in a blockchain they really have to grant you a license to use that ape.
Bjartr 4y ago
It's more complicated than that. > The Bored Ape Yacht Club terms of service grant a commercial license to exploit the copyright of each Bored Ape to the owner of the relevant NFT. So the holder of a Bored Ape NFT has a license to commercially use the off-chain image associated with the NFT by way of an on-chain URL. That license is granted by the actual copyright holders of all of the Bored Apes.
- vba616 4y ago
  Yes, of course. Just like you can create anything, and license it as you wish, and keep a list of authorized licensees on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape. The NFTs are better because...
  - lupire 4y ago
    NFT provides a decentralized way to transfer the ownership in a globally visible way. Look, I hate cryptoc, but this is about the one thing in the whole world that NFT is actually good for.
    - vba616 4y ago
      How is it decentralized? Perhaps people use the word differently. I don't understand the word "decentralized" to mean "not occupying a specific physical location". To me it means more like "having many independent parts" or "not having a single point of failure". For example, land titles in the US, I believe, are decentralized. There is not one single national/federal list of who owns what. But having a blockchain is like having that list. I don't know if that is "centralized" in an absolute, yes/no way, but it seems more centralized.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      And this is important because? It doesn’t need to be globally visible. If I sell you ownership, I can do that via email or a piece of paper. And then when it’s disputed you can bring up the email and transaction receipt. And it doesn’t even require an entire countries worth of electricity to do it.
addicted 4y ago
Even if that’s the case, does anyone think procedurally generated computer art of Bored Apes would be worth even a fraction of a few dollars if it wasn’t for crypto marketing making people believe they can sell it for much more? In other words, the only value these things have is the belief that a bigger sucker will come around who will pay even more for it. And has it actually been copyrighted with the USPTO and the various copy protection agencies across the world? Because if not, then who will actually enforce it and what legal backing does that copyright have? And if it has been copyrighted, then what value does putting it on a blockchain add when the copyright enforcement is being maintained by the same entities that would have done it if it was on Shutterstock?
- GuB-42 4y ago
  Speculation is one thing, and I think it is what drives the costs to such ridiculous extremes. However, I don't think it explains all of the value. First is the art itself, probably not worth much considering that it is rather generic and partly generated art, but some people may actually like it. Then there is the idea of being part of something big. Some people think that NFTs are revolutionary, that in the future, this is what will represent property, more than a paper in some administrative office. Owning a NFT now is like owning a piece of history. And there is also this idea that many collectors share that if it is rare and unique, it is worth having, and apes are rare and unique. I know some collectors who spend thousands on collectable items, like video game cartridges or trading cards with no intention to ever sell them back. It is their treasure, it represents a lot of dedication and effort, they may have memories attached to it. It may sound stupid to outsiders but it is important.
  - hnthrow1010 4y ago
    I would have no problem with NFTs if they were simply billed as a useless "collectible" thing sitting in an account that you can use as an excuse to show off how you donated to an artist. But from that perspective, you don't need blockchains or smart contracts; the only thing needed is a donations platform like Patreon. The ridiculous nonsense about how NFTs are going to be "rare unique property" and "an investment" is a pure grift. It is shameful to see artists repeating those lies just to make a dollar. You are getting nothing from them. At least with trading cards you technically do get a picture you can look at, and maybe you could use them for enjoyment to play a game. With NFTs you are literally getting nothing. They are designed to seize the minds of people who have that "collector" personality and take advantage of them.
axlee 4y ago
So...from the government? Great work at decentralizing.
taylorius 4y ago
What use is the copyright ownership? Does anyone have any interest in the images, other than their speculative "value" as an NFT? I can't imagine anyone being able to (for example) sell posters or prints of a bored ape. Or is my imagination simply lacking?
dools 4y ago
You mean you need a legal framework to enforce ownership of crypto assets? Who’da thunkit

abxytg 4y ago

It's not hard. "Surely this will appreciate, I am a genius"

pwillia7 4y ago
It's FOMO because they knew people that bought at something you would feel is ridiculous and sold for 40x or whatever and so they convince themselves the same thing will happen. I think this is less crazy than the first round of buyers after the initial pop.

Uptrenda 4y ago

It works fine with actual art but I've yet to see an NFT comparable to say: the Mona Lisa. When I got into the blockchain space ~9 years ago I would have never imagined years later people would be going crazy over pictures of jpegs. People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing.

jjtheblunt 4y ago
is that because physical paints can't be immediately copied like a sequence of bits can?
- yawnxyz 4y ago
  but you can order a print of the Mona Lisa very easily for like $15
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    The loss of fidelity between the physical original and a $15 print is comparable to 10,000 generations of jpg decoding and re-encoding.
    - iamacyborg 4y ago
      The original you see today isn’t the original that would have been seen immediately after it was painted. Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find yourself in the Louvre, look at what’s hung on the opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.
      - jjtheblunt 4y ago
        (totally agree, and found myself laughing reading this)
      - spapas82 4y ago
        In case anyone wonders which is the painting... http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/painting/6/ http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/paint...

chaostheory 4y ago

Are we sure that those weren’t wash trades?

adrr 4y ago

How do NFTs work with copyright laws? Does owning an NFT grant you rights and how does that work with copyright law?

hnthrow1010 4y ago
The short answers are: they don't, no, and it doesn't. Some NFTs do have a separate legal document saying you get a copyright license (or maybe even the copyright) if you "own" the NFT, but this is not required, and is entirely separate from the NFT. The author could very easily mint multiple NFTs of the same thing or just sell more licenses of the same thing on the side; if you look into the fine print of any NFT marketplace they will say straight out that you are not actually getting any exclusive ownership of anything unless the seller explicitly says so in separate legal terms. And even then, it usually is on the buyer to do any due diligence to make sure that the copyright actually belongs to them and the artwork isn't ripped off.
breakfastduck 4y ago
No, it does not because the NFT is a receipt. You are literally buying a receipt for your purchase of... a receipt.
D13Fd 4y ago
I expect NFTs are most analogous to owning a copy of a work, not the copyright. So you pay $330k and you get rights equivalent to prints of a piece of art. This may come with an implied right to publicly display the art, or may not, and that right may be limited in some ways. And, like a print, you can keep and treasure your NFT or re-sell it. But you don’t own the copyright and can’t make more prints unless there was a separate agreement to that effect.

Spooky23 4y ago

I remember when my nine year old commented on the YouTuber “What’s inside” guy trading a Tesla for some NFT - “dad, that’s really dumb”