I find this part amusing. It makes me wonder if it is even possible to actually plagiarize an NFT. Like, sure if you copy a picture shown in an NFT, reupload it and wrap it in a new NFT, that's plaigarism, but the way around that is even simpler! Just deploy the new NFT and reference the location of the existing picture! If people are willing to purchase your NFT anyway, who cares?
Its like buying a picture frame, holding it up over your face and looking through it to a picture hung 5 feet away. If people are willing to pay for that, then sell picture frames. NFT are the picture frames.
The difference is that I find it merely amusing, while this person finds it like their missionary duty to stop the practice. But why? Who cares? The contract address of the digital picture frame is different and can't be plaigarized, its up to the consumer to discern. If consumers don't want to..... then sell digital picture frames!
There are overlapping similarities to a selling a TV as well, or cable box, you can set the channel to one thing elsewhere, or you can change the channel. NFTs are the TV or cable box here.
I think the most similarities would be like those digital photo frames you can buy at stores, the ones w/ tiny android computers in them that show a digital photo that you set. That's the NFT, except the NFT is completely digital, so its more akin to a digital digital photo frame.
Maybe Matt Levine could write it that way and more people would get it that way. But maybe you're already perceiving the world correctly, congratulations, you perceive the world correctly. The market is saying sell those, so sell those.
There was this other article here where the author made an interactive NFT. When you looked at it in the market it actually nice. But once you bought it, the web server knew that you were in your wallet and it was just the poop emoji…
nice, wondering how that conditional logic works. I've played with getImageUri() methods for some time. Maybe they actually setImageUri() within the transfer() method and it checks the owner address for certain ABI characteristic of a smart contract versus an EOA (individual's address). or actually never needing to setImageUri() and just have that last check in getImageUri to serve different metadata based on the type of owner address.
It's incredibly simple. The NFT points to a URL controlled by the author. The author configured the web server so that it would respond with different images "based on the IP or User Agent of the requester." There's nothing web3 or blockchain going on here, it's just a normal image URL where the web server responds differently for different requests. Kinda like image hosting services that would return a placeholder image if you tried to hotlink directly to the image URL.
author here - folks... just look into this stuff for 5 mins, it's amazing. Beeple (famous NFT artist) actually threatened to do this to one his NFTs if Trump one the 2020 election
If people are willing to purchase your NFT anyway, who cares?
Isn't that ultimately how anything works? I can print out a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, say "I'm selling the Mona Lisa," and someone can purchase it if they choose to. Of course, I may have broken some laws in the particular government jurisdiction this transaction occurs in, like trademark, copyright, fraud, etc., but that's just as true with NFTs.
This just doesn't seem like a valid criticism of NFTs. There are plenty of valid and strong criticisms of NFTs available, so there's no need to invent invalid and weak ones!
Isn't that ultimately how anything works? I can print out a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, say "I'm selling the Mona Lisa," and someone can purchase it if they choose to. Of course, I may have broken some laws in the particular government jurisdiction this transaction occurs in, like trademark, copyright, fraud, etc., but that's just as true with NFTs.
Well no the difference here is that my example has nothing copied either. Your example has something copied. They are not analogous as they lack that similarity.
The person selling this NFT that contains no copy does not have to misrepresent anything. Hence no fraud. The contract address is obviously different.
Theft requires something to be moved.
Copyright infringement requires something to be copied.
Fraud requires misrepresentation.
None of that is necessary here.
I don't consider what I wrote to be a criticism of NFTs, I find it amusing.
Well no the difference here is that my example has nothing copied either. Your example has something copied. They are not analogous as they lack that similarity.
Okay, then just tweak my analogy slightly and sell a piece of paper printed with the URL to a photograph of the Mona Lisa, or to an image of a piece of digital artwork, or to a digital audio file, etc.
The person selling this NFT that contains no copy does not have to misrepresent anything. Hence no fraud. The contract address is obviously different.
If you're defining it as not fraudulent and not copying anything, then what's absurd about the situation at all? It might be amusing that someone might buy something that you personally don't value at all, but that's hardly unique to NFTs.
If you're defining it as not fraudulent and not copying anything, then what's absurd about the situation at all? It might be amusing that someone might buy something that you personally don't value at all, but that's hardly unique to NFTs.
I believe this is exactly the question Steve Mould asks the Legal Eagle in a recent video about NFTs [1]. Short answer: it's technically feasible but it would probably be deemed illegal according to the normal legal system.
Sorry, I corrected my comment; his point is that it's actually not about copyright but about other problems such as trademark infringement, misrepresentation, etc.
Edit: also I updated the video link so it points to that specific part of the video.
but about other problems such as trademark infringement, misrepresentation, etc.
right but specifically what?
which one and how would that play out
if there is no logo or phrase in the picture, then it couldn't be a trademark infringement. and even if there was I would have to look at it case by case, with many cases I don't think it would be applicable. the consumer has to discern with the features that the blockchain provides. if there is a valid consumer protection issue thats with the marketplaces and wallets UI. the lister doesn't have to misrepresent anything if the consumer is buying by looking at pictures alone. and the lister could likely make a compliant and accurate name. "NFT showing Bored Apes"
I'm not really sure what more specifics you need. It seems pretty clear that if the key identifying characteristic of a good is that a specific URL indicates the provenance of that good, then selling another good using that URL to deceive the buyer about the provenance of your good is very likely to be grounds for a lawsuit over trademark infringement or misrepresentation.
I am dumb. So please explain how “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s Bored Ape” or “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s NFT that points to his Bored Ape” is grounds for any legal action. There is no misrepresentation, deception, copying, infringement, or whatnot.
So please explain how “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s Bored Ape” or “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s NFT that points to his Bored Ape” is grounds for any legal action. There is no misrepresentation, deception, copying, infringement, or whatnot.
The thing is, the law isn't just a regex you apply to what the seller said and it tells you if the seller broke the law. That ain't how it works. At the end of the day it's going to come down to whether the seller mislead the buyer.
and if the consumer doesn't care about additional NFT's that simply point to the picture that the creator uploaded, then whoever the consumer bought from has violated nothing
I'll expand on another commenter's analogy. Imagine if it was possible to easily duplicate, atom-for-atom, the Mona Lisa. How much would a copy go for? Maybe $50 with a nice frame? Nothing close to the mega millions for the real thing.
This means that the value of the painting is not the painting itself. It's valuable because of who created it and the history surrounding it.
It's possible that bad actors will try and sell a forgery, with paintings as well as for NFTs. That doesn't mean all paintings are worthless. It just means that buyers have to be careful.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of NFTs (and to be honest I'll probably never buy one) but this is not one of them.
I don't consider this a criticism. I also don't find the analogy applicable. Their updated analogy is more applicable "a sheet of paper with a URL to a photo of the mona lisa" that a consumer buys.
I understand and use and create and sell NFTs, I can understand where your assumption came from given what responses one might expect to see on this forum.
I think this is an interesting nuance of this technology that is not well understood by NFT traders or NFT critics. Many malicious actors are also doing more than they have to do to sell "forged" NFTs. Developers can perceive whats going on though.
Comments
I find this part amusing. It makes me wonder if it is even possible to actually plagiarize an NFT. Like, sure if you copy a picture shown in an NFT, reupload it and wrap it in a new NFT, that's plaigarism, but the way around that is even simpler! Just deploy the new NFT and reference the location of the existing picture! If people are willing to purchase your NFT anyway, who cares?
Its like buying a picture frame, holding it up over your face and looking through it to a picture hung 5 feet away. If people are willing to pay for that, then sell picture frames. NFT are the picture frames.
The difference is that I find it merely amusing, while this person finds it like their missionary duty to stop the practice. But why? Who cares? The contract address of the digital picture frame is different and can't be plaigarized, its up to the consumer to discern. If consumers don't want to..... then sell digital picture frames!
There are overlapping similarities to a selling a TV as well, or cable box, you can set the channel to one thing elsewhere, or you can change the channel. NFTs are the TV or cable box here.
I think the most similarities would be like those digital photo frames you can buy at stores, the ones w/ tiny android computers in them that show a digital photo that you set. That's the NFT, except the NFT is completely digital, so its more akin to a digital digital photo frame.
Maybe Matt Levine could write it that way and more people would get it that way. But maybe you're already perceiving the world correctly, congratulations, you perceive the world correctly. The market is saying sell those, so sell those.
There was this other article here where the author made an interactive NFT. When you looked at it in the market it actually nice. But once you bought it, the web server knew that you were in your wallet and it was just the poop emoji…
nice, wondering how that conditional logic works. I've played with getImageUri() methods for some time. Maybe they actually setImageUri() within the transfer() method and it checks the owner address for certain ABI characteristic of a smart contract versus an EOA (individual's address). or actually never needing to setImageUri() and just have that last check in getImageUri to serve different metadata based on the type of owner address.
thats hilarious.
The story is from this blog post: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
It's incredibly simple. The NFT points to a URL controlled by the author. The author configured the web server so that it would respond with different images "based on the IP or User Agent of the requester." There's nothing web3 or blockchain going on here, it's just a normal image URL where the web server responds differently for different requests. Kinda like image hosting services that would return a placeholder image if you tried to hotlink directly to the image URL.
author here - folks... just look into this stuff for 5 mins, it's amazing. Beeple (famous NFT artist) actually threatened to do this to one his NFTs if Trump one the 2020 election
https://api.niftygateway.com/beeple/100010001/
More info: https://cryptobriefing.com/rare-beeple-donald-trump-nft-sell...
Me again - lom this is the experiment you’re talking about: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
Isn't that ultimately how anything works? I can print out a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, say "I'm selling the Mona Lisa," and someone can purchase it if they choose to. Of course, I may have broken some laws in the particular government jurisdiction this transaction occurs in, like trademark, copyright, fraud, etc., but that's just as true with NFTs.
This just doesn't seem like a valid criticism of NFTs. There are plenty of valid and strong criticisms of NFTs available, so there's no need to invent invalid and weak ones!
Well no the difference here is that my example has nothing copied either. Your example has something copied. They are not analogous as they lack that similarity.
The person selling this NFT that contains no copy does not have to misrepresent anything. Hence no fraud. The contract address is obviously different.
Theft requires something to be moved. Copyright infringement requires something to be copied. Fraud requires misrepresentation.
None of that is necessary here.
I don't consider what I wrote to be a criticism of NFTs, I find it amusing.
Okay, then just tweak my analogy slightly and sell a piece of paper printed with the URL to a photograph of the Mona Lisa, or to an image of a piece of digital artwork, or to a digital audio file, etc.
If you're defining it as not fraudulent and not copying anything, then what's absurd about the situation at all? It might be amusing that someone might buy something that you personally don't value at all, but that's hardly unique to NFTs.
We're agreeing then.
I believe this is exactly the question Steve Mould asks the Legal Eagle in a recent video about NFTs [1]. Short answer: it's technically feasible but it would probably be deemed illegal according to the normal legal system.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZaTd0hDtkI&t=1231
That makes zero sense.
If you're posting a new NFT that just references the existing URL, you aren't copying anything.
Unfortunately I can't watch the video right now. Care to summarize the reasoning, here? Because it escapes me.
Sorry, I corrected my comment; his point is that it's actually not about copyright but about other problems such as trademark infringement, misrepresentation, etc.
Edit: also I updated the video link so it points to that specific part of the video.
right but specifically what?
which one and how would that play out
if there is no logo or phrase in the picture, then it couldn't be a trademark infringement. and even if there was I would have to look at it case by case, with many cases I don't think it would be applicable. the consumer has to discern with the features that the blockchain provides. if there is a valid consumer protection issue thats with the marketplaces and wallets UI. the lister doesn't have to misrepresent anything if the consumer is buying by looking at pictures alone. and the lister could likely make a compliant and accurate name. "NFT showing Bored Apes"
I'm not really sure what more specifics you need. It seems pretty clear that if the key identifying characteristic of a good is that a specific URL indicates the provenance of that good, then selling another good using that URL to deceive the buyer about the provenance of your good is very likely to be grounds for a lawsuit over trademark infringement or misrepresentation.
I am dumb. So please explain how “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s Bored Ape” or “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s NFT that points to his Bored Ape” is grounds for any legal action. There is no misrepresentation, deception, copying, infringement, or whatnot.
The thing is, the law isn't just a regex you apply to what the seller said and it tells you if the seller broke the law. That ain't how it works. At the end of the day it's going to come down to whether the seller mislead the buyer.
all it takes is one court case for everyone to learn what not to say, while doing the same action
If the creator mints the NFT then it's traceable back to them.
and if the consumer doesn't care about additional NFT's that simply point to the picture that the creator uploaded, then whoever the consumer bought from has violated nothing
that's my point
Why wouldn't the consumer care about that?
I'll expand on another commenter's analogy. Imagine if it was possible to easily duplicate, atom-for-atom, the Mona Lisa. How much would a copy go for? Maybe $50 with a nice frame? Nothing close to the mega millions for the real thing.
This means that the value of the painting is not the painting itself. It's valuable because of who created it and the history surrounding it.
It's possible that bad actors will try and sell a forgery, with paintings as well as for NFTs. That doesn't mean all paintings are worthless. It just means that buyers have to be careful.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of NFTs (and to be honest I'll probably never buy one) but this is not one of them.
I don't consider this a criticism. I also don't find the analogy applicable. Their updated analogy is more applicable "a sheet of paper with a URL to a photo of the mona lisa" that a consumer buys.
I understand and use and create and sell NFTs, I can understand where your assumption came from given what responses one might expect to see on this forum.
I think this is an interesting nuance of this technology that is not well understood by NFT traders or NFT critics. Many malicious actors are also doing more than they have to do to sell "forged" NFTs. Developers can perceive whats going on though.