Fine artists who are known in the international art market do not take commissions. They also do not give buyers of a piece copyright (obviously both of these things are even more true if they are dead).
You also wouldn't be able to distinguish a fake painted for a few thousand dollars, much less so with a print or digital art, so the physical artifact is somewhat meaningless as well, at least as far as value goes. Collectors buy pieces and keep them in storage. They might buy a piece without ever laying eyes on the physical artifact.
The art market has always run on provenance and certificates of authenticity. You could argue that fine art is bullshit, and you can also that a blockchain is not necessary to keep track of certificates of authenticity, but arguing that the entire concept of art ownership without copyright is bullshit is to ignore what the reality of the art market has always been.
What digital assets are you referring to? During the NFT frenzy, the NFTs in question did not convey any assets that I'm aware of -- they transferred no unique physical artifacts, nor ownership of any copyrights or trademarks.
The NFTs just included public URLs pointing to files, so pepole were effectively buying and selling certificates of authenticity for artwork without owning the actual artwork itself!
However you want, but you can’t prevent it being copied or made “ununique” in any “real” way. Or somehow have control over the means by which it is consumed or produced.
Many places make money off of digital assets, but there’s no pretext of it somehow being scarce.
NFTs are not a good solution to buying artwork. They are a novel concept, but translating that to conventional problems around ownership is difficult and probably not the best solution.
Digital tickets for anything that uses tickets, deeds for transfer of real property, execution of contracts, etc.
Any use case in which some blob of data corresponds to an individually specifiable concrete thing is a suitable use case for NFTs.
The problem with the speculative frenzy a few years ago was that the NFTs in question did not convey ownership over anything -- people were trading the NFTs themselves rather than using them as deeds/contracts/tickets corresponding to some other external asset. If the NFTs were used to convey copyright ownership or exclusive usage rights to the underlying artwork, they'd have made a lot more sense, but as it played out, people were paying huge sums of money for what amounted to tickets to nowhere.
NFTs are a great solution for demonstrating provenance. They can function as digital certificates of authenticity for an asset. Treating them as assets themselves, though, is pretty ridiculous.