9 ms·

In what sense would I "own" the art? Do I have more rights over it than anyone else - and if so, how are these legally enforced? What prevents the artist from m

In what sense would I "own" the art? Do I have more rights over it than anyone else - and if so, how are these legally enforced? What prevents the artist from minting a different type of NFT (or whatever comes next) on that same artwork?

miracle2k 5y ago
No, you don't have more rights than anyone else, and nothing prevents the artist from minting more NFTs of the same artwork. But this is no different than buying say a print of a fine art photograph (that print would be physical, yet only artificially limited and easily mass-produced; you may or may not care about this quality).
- blueski 5y ago
  Feels a little different, in that I'd then have a fine art print to put on my wall and enjoy. In this case I have a string of characters on a hard drive. If I didn't care only about price appreciation, why would I pick the latter?
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    Digital things will never be able to reproduce the physical qualities of objects. Yet digital art exists and can be appreciated. And if you appreciate it enough, buy the NFT the artist has for sale.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Or just give the artist some money and not waste any resources minting a worthless NFT?
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        Use a PoS chain and it's an entirely harmless activity from an energy-perspective, no more concerning than posting on HN.
vmception 5y ago
When people say own, they are referring to current possession. This a colloquialism that does not distinguish the legal rights, surprising that this has to even be said but it keeps coming up exclusively in the NFT topic. Try not to overthink it? An artist can attempt to additionally bundle explicit rights into an NFT transaction. Just like they can attempt to bundle a physically copyright assignment with a sale of physical art. But they don't, in either case, thats not how the market has formed. Its a very uncommon thing that also has nothing to do with the technology, but the technology can help it, its still not what people are doing. "But I like physical things because theyre valuable to me because I can touch them and look at them without a computer", okay, there are multiple generations of people that don't care by now. Compare it to the digital things then. These populations do care that their earned digital goods are arbitrary modifiable and revokable entries in a company database, and have different limits about how much money they put towards something like that, versus this format of possession.
- blueski 5y ago
  Limiting ourselves to the digital world - does ownership of an NFT give me any more rights to experience or enjoy a piece of work than a non-owner? If someone else wanted to use my Bored Ape as their Twitter photo, could I stop them?
  - vmception 5y ago
    Yes, it does. Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), for example, has physical clubs and events that require users to prove provenance for access. This means signing an address that is a current owner, and applies to both physical and digital access of tertiary goods and services. Signing an address proves access to that address and means they have the private key to move everything. The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access. Even the replicants discussed in the OP here would not have access. Additionally, many popular NFTs, like BAYC, get airdropped many things for attention, some of which have varying degrees of value, or BAYC may be the only ones available to mint another new NFT being dropped. This would be enforced at the code or smart contract level. It is common for many less valuable or otherwise uninteresting NFTs to partner up and collaborate with other NFTs to make this chain of communities. Sometimes that results in some level of value. By common, I mean over the last 5 months in the NFT space. This concept has pre-dated NFT related things, and some of my best trades have been from either receiving airdrops or claiming things that went on to have a lot of value. But I really like some of the worthless things I've claimed too.

miracle2k 5y ago

No, you don't have more rights than anyone else, and nothing prevents the artist from minting more NFTs of the same artwork. But this is no different than buying say a print of a fine art photograph (that print would be physical, yet only artificially limited and easily mass-produced; you may or may not care about this quality).

blueski 5y ago
Feels a little different, in that I'd then have a fine art print to put on my wall and enjoy. In this case I have a string of characters on a hard drive. If I didn't care only about price appreciation, why would I pick the latter?
- miracle2k 5y ago
  Digital things will never be able to reproduce the physical qualities of objects. Yet digital art exists and can be appreciated. And if you appreciate it enough, buy the NFT the artist has for sale.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Or just give the artist some money and not waste any resources minting a worthless NFT?
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      Use a PoS chain and it's an entirely harmless activity from an energy-perspective, no more concerning than posting on HN.

vmception 5y ago

When people say own, they are referring to current possession. This a colloquialism that does not distinguish the legal rights, surprising that this has to even be said but it keeps coming up exclusively in the NFT topic. Try not to overthink it? An artist can attempt to additionally bundle explicit rights into an NFT transaction. Just like they can attempt to bundle a physically copyright assignment with a sale of physical art. But they don't, in either case, thats not how the market has formed. Its a very uncommon thing that also has nothing to do with the technology, but the technology can help it, its still not what people are doing. "But I like physical things because theyre valuable to me because I can touch them and look at them without a computer", okay, there are multiple generations of people that don't care by now. Compare it to the digital things then. These populations do care that their earned digital goods are arbitrary modifiable and revokable entries in a company database, and have different limits about how much money they put towards something like that, versus this format of possession.

blueski 5y ago
Limiting ourselves to the digital world - does ownership of an NFT give me any more rights to experience or enjoy a piece of work than a non-owner? If someone else wanted to use my Bored Ape as their Twitter photo, could I stop them?
- vmception 5y ago
  Yes, it does. Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), for example, has physical clubs and events that require users to prove provenance for access. This means signing an address that is a current owner, and applies to both physical and digital access of tertiary goods and services. Signing an address proves access to that address and means they have the private key to move everything. The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access. Even the replicants discussed in the OP here would not have access. Additionally, many popular NFTs, like BAYC, get airdropped many things for attention, some of which have varying degrees of value, or BAYC may be the only ones available to mint another new NFT being dropped. This would be enforced at the code or smart contract level. It is common for many less valuable or otherwise uninteresting NFTs to partner up and collaborate with other NFTs to make this chain of communities. Sometimes that results in some level of value. By common, I mean over the last 5 months in the NFT space. This concept has pre-dated NFT related things, and some of my best trades have been from either receiving airdrops or claiming things that went on to have a lot of value. But I really like some of the worthless things I've claimed too.