|
|
|
|
|
|
by BobbyJo
1638 days ago
|
|
|
This completely glosses over the fact that this only works for things on-chain. So you own an NFT, what does that actually mean? Does it mean you verifiably own the thing the NFT points to? No. It simply means you verifiably own the pointer. The link between the pointer and the off-chain thing is still completely vulnerable and unverifiable. I think the real world equivalent is having a signed legal contract, but no courts or police. Feel free to buy and sell the contract, as I'm sure that has value as art in and of itself (which is how I see NFTs). But if you wish to lay claim to the items under contract, glhf. |
|
|
Let’s say an artist creates a minting process, which contains a click through contract granting you legal rights to the image purchased, the right to make derivatives, etc., which rights transfer always to the holder of the NFT.
You now have a legal contract granting the NFT holder all IP license rights to that image. If there are 300 intermediate secondary transactions, and then I buy the NFT, make a derivative to exploit commercially, and get sued, my defense in court is simple: (1) here’s the governing IP license terms and (2) I own the NFT which is easily proved on chain. That IP license, by the way, could even be embedded on chain.
I can think of lots of examples like the above, where you can leverage some offchain system (like an IP license) with an on chain one, so that you have real world rights to an item but also benefit from easy and auditable transferability.
Again, just because NFTs do not solve all problems (eg you still need an IP license) does not mean that combining the two is not a real and useful improvement.