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.
Comments
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