Unlike the collectable NFT's of content that is available on youtube, it appears that this image is unique and you actually own the rights to it - so has some traditional intrinsic value - in the same sense that a painting has anyway.
That's nothing like 'traditional intrinsic value', seems to me. Theres absolutely nothing different from my experience and the 'owners' experience.
Imagine for instance that I register the image with a different blockchain. Do I now 'own it' too? Yes, I do, by this modern tortured logic.
In a couple years this might be displayed in a museum somewhere.
Modern art like monochromes are still displayed to this day.
Making a high quality copy of a digital work requires exactly no additional work. It actually takes more work to make a non-exact copy (say the CPU time of recompressing a JPEG with different compression settings). Because there's no work required to make an exact, indistinguishable copy, there is no scarcity.
If this was just about recording the rights to use/exploit a work, digitally and mathematically backing the concept of copyright, that would be one thing. That would help with, say licensing stock photos. But what does it mean to "own" Jack's first tweet? How does one exploit that exclusive ownership? Is it the words of the tweet? An image of it?
One important question is what will enable NFTs? Maybe it's virtual hang outs places with digital scarcity, then it makes sense.
At least classic cars or limited edition supercars actually have proper scarcity, and they are things that can actually be enjoyed and shown to people for bragging rights (i.e. to gain social value) or to attract a mate.
In my view NFTs is just yet another digital ponzi scheme, kudos to whoever came up with it, even Jack Dorsey saw the $$$ and got attracted to it.