Comment on “Should art be regulated by the SEC?” NFT artists file lawsuit

FiskFisk33@startrek.website ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• sugartits@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It’s not even that.

  There is a huge lack of insight into who owns the copyright of an NFT. This confusion likely stems from the fact that an NFT comprises two things: (i) the identifiable, non-fungible, non-replicable, and transferrable cryptographic asset recorded on the blockchain, and (ii) the creative content. The creative content is separate and distinct from the actual asset recorded on the blockchain. As such, the person or entity that created the creative content owns the copyright. The content creator continues to own the copyright, even if the NFT is sold to someone else. It’s analogous to Jeff Koons selling artwork he created—Koons can sell the art to one person to hang on their wall, but since Jeff also owns the copyright, he can sell that same artwork as an image on t-shirts.

  bpp.msu.edu/…/nfts-what-you-need-to-know-to-prote…

  NFTs are literally just URLs, pointlessly stored on the blockchain. URLs that point to servers which can be switched off at any moment.

  source

  • FiskFisk33@startrek.website ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    wait, what are you even buying then?!

    I thought (i) at least served as a proof of ownership for (ii)…

    source

    • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Nope.

      This is why anyone not huffing paintbhas stayed far away from NFTs.

      source
    • AlotOfReading@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      No, 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.

      source

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • vithigar@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      At best you’re buying into a collective agreement of ownership among those also participating in the NFT ecosystem. You own a thing because a large enough group of people agree you own it and respect the authority of that token.

      At worst you’ve been scammed and are trying to convince yourself the above is true and that said “large enough group” includes anyone at all capable of enforcing said ownership. Spoilers: it does not.

      source
    • sugartits@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • sugartits@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Why did a moderator remove my comment?

        Do you want this place to die? Because excessive moderation is how this place dies.

        source
      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I thought you at least had the rights to it, wow.

        source
• Wilzax@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  NFTs are great for replacing things like deeds or vehicle titles, where we need paperwork to verify ownership. But the problem arises when it’s cryptographically hard (meaning exceedingly unlikely on reasonable timescales) to reverse fraudulent transfers of those documents. Cutting out a centralized authority at the price of making the system more vulnerable for gullible people is almost always not worth it.

  source