[Tenoke]

On-chain knowledge is the transaction https://etherscan.io/tx/0x798c7060f2e5e0cf2a4d143874be88f404... and their official address 0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118a18a936f13d which is sufficient for me to tell whether it was minted by them or not. The other one clearly is affiliated with some other address in its transaction.

[ceejayoz]

No, that's off-chain knowledge coming into play.

You know Bored Ape Yacht Club and Phunky Ape Yacht Club exist. How do you know which one owns the copyright to the images? Which one's the original artist, and which one's the fraud?

[Tenoke]

I am not sure what you are arguing for but obviously there are off-chain parts, too. The point is that once Ape Yacht Club or whoever has publicized their address I can always confirm in the future whether an Ape NFT originated from them and how it was traded after that.

Loosely similarly, if I want to communicate with someone securely they first have to communicate to me their public key but once I have it I can always verify that a message comes from them and send them messages back.

[ceejayoz]

I'm arguing there's a massive missing link in the provenance chain.

The person who put a JPEG on the blockchain may not own that JPEG. As evidenced by the existence of the Phunky Ape Yacht Club copies.

A list of transactions after that point doesn't demonstrate ownership if you can't demonstrate ownership by the minter.

[nybble41]

Ownership of (most) NFTs has absolutely nothing to do with ownership of the copyright, making this a red herring. It doesn't matter whether the minter of the NFT owns the JPEG. All that matters is whether someone is willing to pay to acquire the minter's digital autograph (i.e. the NFT). Of course if you are expecting a license or transfer of copyright to accompany the NFT then you'd better do your due diligence regarding whether the seller holds the necessary rights, but that applies equally well to old-fashioned signatures on paper contracts.