[ceejayoz]

The copyright holder is free to write up a license that says the current holder of the NFT may use it as if they hold the copyright, though. Many NFTs don’t, but it’s possible.

[knorker]

But nothing guarantees that the seller of the NFT, the current holder of the NFT, is also the current copyright holder.

It's basically completely disconnected, so while the transfers may traditionally be done at the same time between the same entities, that's not a contract. The NFT just gives you a Blockchain url. If you didn't sign anything else then you got nothing else.

[ceejayoz]

In the case of BAYC specifically, though, the contract guarantees that.

https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms

> When you purchase an NFT, you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely.

> Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”).

[knorker]

> you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely.

No, you just have a license to use it according to a license. That's very clearly "not owning".

It's something, but it's not owning.

[ceejayoz]

Did you miss the first part? The original copyright owner is explicitly saying in their terms that you get ownership.

You’re just restricted by contract to pass on said ownership if you sell.

It’s like a house with a homeowners association. Can’t ditch the HOA by selling. Still own the house.

[knorker]

This is all legal theatre to distract from the fact that there is no ownership change. Which is what I said.

You yourself said that all you get is a license, not ownership.

That is not even remotely close to the legal basis under which HOAs have power, which is a lien on the house, not with you.

House: You bought a house with an HOA lien.

NFT: You licensed (do not own) an image. Like YOU quoted there is no ownership change at any point.

These are not even remotely similar.