[amluto]

But somehow it’s real?

> Since the NFT was stolen, Green lost the right to use it in his show.

Under what law or other principle does using a picture in a show rely on an entry in a blockchain? Or is the risk that ignoring the NFT and the using the IP anyway might further pop the NFT bubble?

[hungryforcodes]

Nothing of course. But obviously he's trying to shape the narrative in his favor.

[Animats]

Yes. The thief is unlikely to make a copyright claim.

Green probably won't be able to get into NYC Apefest, which starts Monday. Which is the only actual benefit that comes from holding a BAYC NFT. Although, at age 48, he probably is too old for a rave.

[07d046]

This sounds like the same level of understanding about copyright law that led one NFT group to spend $3m on a rare Dune art book thinking it would give them the IP rights to the art.

[d13]

Those particular NFTs include the copyright. (Not all NFTs do.)

[pbhjpbhj]

But not intrinsically, if it was stolen then you could just use the image to mint a new NFT, declare the other one as stolen -- maybe make an affidavit, or use some legal instrument -- then you've "unstolen" it. They're choosing to consider it as non-fungible, continuing that choice in order to deny yourself legal use of your property is not just drinking the cool-aid but bathing in it too.

Of course this could be intentional, as others have said, it furthers the narrative that NFTs are genuinely non-fungible.

[smachiz]

What's even more amazing is that the person in possession of it would have to identify themselves to bring an infringement claim...

At which point they're open to theft charges.

Bathing in kool aid indeed.

[pclmulqdq]

They could construct a sale transaction to themselves, which leads to the charge being mere possession of stolen property. Of course, if the recipient of the property had no knowledge that it was stolen, and just thought they were getting a good deal, I'm not sure a crime would have been committed at all.

[smachiz]

That would also result in the return of the property to the original owner once identified.

Maybe no one gets prosecuted if they’re clever, but they would be compelled to return it (or then face possession of stolen property charges and contempt of court)

[robonerd]

> not just drinking the cool-aid but bathing in it too.

It's a sticky situation. If they don't pretend they've lost the copyright by losing the NFT, then the NFT is demystified and no longer has value. Since the value of this particular copyright is almost entirely derived from the perception of NFTs being special, the NFT being demystified means they lose out anyway.

It's like you have a Picasso and all your friends are very impressed. Then somebody steals it, and to get it back means going to the police and inevitably admitting that it was never a real Picasso in the first place. So either way, you've lost. So instead you don't go to the police, never admit it was fake in the first place, and instead hope that it will be returned to you through some extrajudicial means that won't necessitate an admission of fakery.

[chitowneats]

Bathing in Kool-Aid is a great line. Hope you don't mind if I steal it.

[eganist]

Do one better.

Mint it.

[pbhjpbhj]

It's completely fungible, theft is impossible! ;o)

[chitowneats]

Touche!

[KerrAvon]

IANAL, but that’s not how copyright law works. Stealing a painting does not give you the copyright.

[maleldil]

I'm in way over my head here, but in your painting example, the thief would steal the object, not the ownership proof. In the Ape case, the NFT is the owernship proof, so it's like the thief stole whatever document said you owned the painting. Since there's no 3rd party to verify that a legitimate transaction happened, the thief owns the Ape now.