[giuliomagnifico]

A rip of his video? A digital video without any cut with all the credits at the end and beginning of the video and with the link to the source in the comments?!

No, it’s simply that people don’t understand what is a NFT.

Anyway I don’t care about the video on Reddit, but is the principle here.

As I wrote, if you make a screenshot of every Bored Apes and you use it as your avatar with the credits to the original owner, is a copyright violation? No, it’s how a digital product works.

[Jxl180]

> A digital video without any cut with all the credits at the end and beginning of the video and with the link to the source in the comments?! Yes, reuploading someone else’s YouTube video is a shitty thing to do and a copyright violation. > you make a screenshot of every Bored Apes and you use it as your avatar with the credits to the original owner, is a copyright violation? No, it’s how a digital product works. No, that’s not how digital products work, and yes, it is a copyright violation. Giving credit doesn’t automatically grant you permission to use copyrighted material. Are you suggesting I can legally upload The Avengers to the internet in its entirety and it wouldn’t be a copyright violation as long as I leave the credits in? Or I can host an Adobe Photoshop binary as long as I give credit to Adobe?

You’re 100% in the wrong. Even Bored Apes has strict copyright licensing defined for their holders.

[giuliomagnifico]

We have different point of view. I’m a photographer and when someone shows/links my photos on other sources, with the credits, I’m glad.

Anyway the web is full of mirrors of adobe apps.

It has been different if I had cut the video credits and didn’t linked to the source, but since I did, it’s not a copyright violation. It’s only someone that wouldn’t other people view it’s video outside of YouTube because he’s making money from YouTube. Now the result is that he lost all the traffic generates from the Reddit comments to his video.

And this is not the principles of free web and NFT in my opinion.

[corobo]

> if you make a screenshot of every Bored Apes and you use it as your avatar with the credits to the original owner, is a copyright violation? No

Yes, it is. At least in the UK and US where I've bumped into copyright laws. The copyright holder could DMCA your avatar off pretty easily

Sorry bud but your article is pretty wrong all over, you cut and dry infringed on their copyright. Web3 isn't above the law, it's above regulation (for now)

[giuliomagnifico]

>The copyright holder could DMCA your avatar off pretty easily

This is the point, and to me looks totally wrong, in 4/5 years every online platform will be full of DMCA requests.

The point here is: if you rip off the source and you don’t give credits or cut a image watermark, then is a copyright violation. But if don’t modify the digital art and you give all the credits to the author, should not be a copyright violation.

[corobo]

Well the artist can do it, they don't have to do it.

If the majority of artists are like yourself and don't care if others use their work freely (from another comment not just assuming) then copyright allows them to sit and smile as people enjoy their work.

If they do care, then it's lucky we have copyright :)

[giuliomagnifico]

I understand it and it’s also legit but my point here is still: what the social platforms will do in the future when they will be full of DMCA takedown requests from the people who bought a NFT and others have made a screenshot of it?

Is the web we want? Just asking. Maybe yes. I don’t known, I want only to talk about this.

[corobo]

You are suggesting something I don’t believe will happen in reality so I can’t really answer your questions

Is an web full of DMCA requests the web I want? No. Do I believe that will in any way happen anyway? Also no