Comment on “Should art be regulated by the SEC?” NFT artists file lawsuit
AlotOfReading@lemmy.world 2 months agoNo, the “non-fungibility” simply means that anyone who creates an NFT with the same link will be distinct from your link to the image, even if the actual URL is the same. Both NFTs can also be traced back to when they were created/minted because they’re on a blockchain, a property called provenance. If the authentic tokens came from a well known minting, you can establish that your token is “authentic” and the copy token is a recreation, even if the actual link (or other content) is completely identical.
Nothing about having the “authentic” token would give you actual legal rights though.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 months ago
yeah, I understand the tech far better than I understand the law. I thought they legally counted as a contract, i guess they’fe not even that.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 months ago
For a contract transferring property, you need 2 parties: One offering and the other accepting. Having knowledge of a cryptographic key implies none of that.
You could get something like this done by transferring the asset to a reputable trustee. The trustee - a law firm, bank, or such - checks that the paperwork is in order and it has the necessary rights. It binds itself contractually to convey some benefit - eg a revocable copyright license - to whoever can show that they have a certain cryptographic key/control of a wallet.
The firm should regularly check if the beneficiary still holds the key. It might get lost or forgotten, after all. The possibility of losing access to the asset by theft or accident is the only thing that involving NFTs add to such a scheme, so one might as well lean into it.
ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 2 months ago
Be a shame if I traded my stupid collection of URLs around and eventually bought them back only to lose the key, better get insurance in case I forget it.