An NFT confers zero legal ownership over the underlying JPEG - without an intellectual property contract attached, you have no claim. You own the pointer to the image, and that's it.
Moreover, it's fairly clear that the NFT isn't about the art, either - the most popular NFTs are just series of procedurally generated crap, from 400pixel avatars to literal rocks.
This. I know an intellectual property lawyer and was told without a legal contract in place there is no way to assert your property rights in a court of law. Legally speaking, you own nothing.
That seems like a specific problem of how copyrights are assigned than the legal/NFT system itself. Bearer bonds are a thing. Are bearer assignments a thing? ie. "I assign the copyright of this work to whoever bears a certificate, or whoever bears a NFT?"
Maybe, but the closest I've heard of is contracts explicitly stating that the NFT doesn't assign any legal rights to the work. I'm not sure if the opposite exists / makes legal sense.
Is it, though? I mean if somebody steals your private key, does it make sense that that would give them legal rights / ownership to your NFT'd artworks? I'm honestly not sure if this is a thing, or a legally sensible idea.
Not true. Someone could take an image that I've created, stick it on a server, create an NFT with a URL pointing at it, then sell it. Likewise, others, including me, could then create an NFT with a URL that points at that piece of data. The original creator (me in this situation) wouldn't have created the 'original' NFT.
NFTs don't solve counterfeiting when anybody can create a 'counterfeit' at any time.
Not true. Someone could take an image that I've created, stick it on a server, create an NFT with a URL pointing at it, then sell it. Likewise, others, including me, could then create an NFT with a URL that points at that piece of data. The original creator (me in this situation) wouldn't have created the 'original' NFT.
Right, just like how you can make a deed that says you own 30 Rockefeller Plaza.
NFTs don't solve counterfeiting when anybody can create a 'counterfeit' at any time.
never claimed it did, only that NFTs can potentially provide a better way to assign/transfer copyrights than the current system of paper contracts.
I was thinking of more "the courts". That's not in line with the crypto-anarchist narrative people like to think must be associated with NFTs, but I think having NFTs replace the complicated system we use to assign ownership today (eg. title searches/insurance) is a pretty attainable goal that doesn't require replacing the entire government with blockchain.
Comments
NFTs are speculative mania in its purest form.
An NFT confers zero legal ownership over the underlying JPEG - without an intellectual property contract attached, you have no claim. You own the pointer to the image, and that's it.
Moreover, it's fairly clear that the NFT isn't about the art, either - the most popular NFTs are just series of procedurally generated crap, from 400pixel avatars to literal rocks.
You own a pointer.
This. I know an intellectual property lawyer and was told without a legal contract in place there is no way to assert your property rights in a court of law. Legally speaking, you own nothing.
That seems like a specific problem of how copyrights are assigned than the legal/NFT system itself. Bearer bonds are a thing. Are bearer assignments a thing? ie. "I assign the copyright of this work to whoever bears a certificate, or whoever bears a NFT?"
Maybe, but the closest I've heard of is contracts explicitly stating that the NFT doesn't assign any legal rights to the work. I'm not sure if the opposite exists / makes legal sense.
Right, my point isn't that most NFTs today grants you rights/ownership, just that it's not unfeasible for that to be a thing.
Is it, though? I mean if somebody steals your private key, does it make sense that that would give them legal rights / ownership to your NFT'd artworks? I'm honestly not sure if this is a thing, or a legally sensible idea.
What's to stop someone from minting another NFT pointing at the same piece of data?
The same thing that prevents you from minting another deed that says you own the same piece of land as someone else.
Not true. Someone could take an image that I've created, stick it on a server, create an NFT with a URL pointing at it, then sell it. Likewise, others, including me, could then create an NFT with a URL that points at that piece of data. The original creator (me in this situation) wouldn't have created the 'original' NFT.
NFTs don't solve counterfeiting when anybody can create a 'counterfeit' at any time.
Right, just like how you can make a deed that says you own 30 Rockefeller Plaza.
never claimed it did, only that NFTs can potentially provide a better way to assign/transfer copyrights than the current system of paper contracts.
A centralized authority and hundreds of years of legal tradition to resolve property disputes?
I was thinking of more "the courts". That's not in line with the crypto-anarchist narrative people like to think must be associated with NFTs, but I think having NFTs replace the complicated system we use to assign ownership today (eg. title searches/insurance) is a pretty attainable goal that doesn't require replacing the entire government with blockchain.
You own the pointer to the image but the pointer can never be dereferenced.
Looking to educate myself here...
I know the pointer cannot be removed from the blockchain but does it contain a hash of the contents? Couldn't someone change what is at the URL.
Like this?
https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1448066579611234305
What is at the URL could disappear altogether.
How is it different from the Buy A Square Foot On The Moon products?