6 ms·

At least the museum then owns the Rembrand and could, for example, charge people to come and see it, or increase the prestige of their museum by displaying it.

At least the museum then owns the Rembrand and could, for example, charge people to come and see it, or increase the prestige of their museum by displaying it. Whereas, with the Grumpy Cat NFT, someone, somewhere, can exhibit some bits that shows they "own"(?) this particular image of Grumpy Cat, which is reproduced millions of times across the internet. Does the NFT even convey the legal rights to the image? Can you send DMCA takedowns based on owning the NFT for an image? What even makes the NFT non-fungible? In fact, if anyone wants it, I'll happily sell you the NFT https://robinmessage.com/nft/GrumpyCat https://robinmessage.com/nft/GrumpyCat for $100,000 and I'll promise: - to probably never issue that NFT to anyone else; - and that, in some ineffable way, it represents the original Grumpy Cat.

qqii 6y ago
The owner of the Grumpy Cat NFT can do one better, he could flash loan his NFT at a small cost. Simplified you can think of an NFT being the following tuple: (NFT contract address, public address). Uniqueness of this tuple is guarenteed by the EVM and liveness of this information is guaranteed by the Ethereum blockchain. A lot of the NFTs value derives from the popularity of the individual that holds the private address corresponding to the public key that created the NFT contract. This is the implicit way it represents the original Grumpy Cat and is not something you can duplicate seeing as you're not Tabatha Bundesen.
J-dawg 6y ago
> Can you send DMCA takedowns based on owning the NFT for an image? I'm also curious about this. Does the buyer now legally own the image itself, as well as the NFT?
jcpham2 6y ago
I can’t help but wonder if satoshi did it best by _not_ attaching a real life persona to the thing. Ethereum is still a huge utterly insane risk because of Vitalik himself. I wouldn’t purchase anything of value as a store of value because of the creator. Value seen or not.

qqii 6y ago

The owner of the Grumpy Cat NFT can do one better, he could flash loan his NFT at a small cost. Simplified you can think of an NFT being the following tuple: (NFT contract address, public address). Uniqueness of this tuple is guarenteed by the EVM and liveness of this information is guaranteed by the Ethereum blockchain. A lot of the NFTs value derives from the popularity of the individual that holds the private address corresponding to the public key that created the NFT contract. This is the implicit way it represents the original Grumpy Cat and is not something you can duplicate seeing as you're not Tabatha Bundesen.

J-dawg 6y ago

> Can you send DMCA takedowns based on owning the NFT for an image? I'm also curious about this. Does the buyer now legally own the image itself, as well as the NFT?

jcpham2 6y ago

I can’t help but wonder if satoshi did it best by _not_ attaching a real life persona to the thing. Ethereum is still a huge utterly insane risk because of Vitalik himself. I wouldn’t purchase anything of value as a store of value because of the creator. Value seen or not.