If no copyright is transferred what is the purpose of owning an 'original' meme which is most likely also a copy?
You don't own Steph Curry (or any of his earnings) by buying his card. You just own his card.
Now, Steph Curry could certainly sell a share of his earnings along with a trading card, but you would be relying on the legal system and contract law to own those earnings, not really the card itself.
I disagree. Smart contracts can automate on-chain activity. They can't actually enforce anything because they have no visibility into or control over the physical world of humans.
For example...
> The smart contract could then pay holders of his NFT shares a set % of his salary automatically.
This would only be possible if the smart contract had access to 100% of his income (everything he earns is in crypto or he converts it to crypto himself).
An unethical person would just keep their money in fiat and never pay anyone anything.
So how do you enforce it then? The legal system and contract law.
You're right, all that owning the card does is allow you to own a tradeable moment/card/NFT... no copyright or direct ownership of the play, player, or NBA.
However (correct me if I'm wrong) I do think that you would be granted some inherent rights or copyright protections (though this is early and would need to be contested in a court when it happens) because you do own the moment to some extent.
So, while a NBA Top Shot card holder may not receive any of that player's dividends or direct copyright for that play, maybe they have some inherent protection to be able to use this moment in artwork or another content creation form? Just food for thought!
Owning Originals Buyers of Originals shouldn’t need any more incentive other than the historical significance and the uniqueness of the art + music EulerBeats NFTs. That said, all EulerBeats Original holders will receive 8% of the print price on each print sold of the original token they own. The royalties are paid automatically as they are programmed into the smart contract and cannot be changed. In addition to the royalties, holders of Originals have full commercial rights. Some Genesis original owners have already created remixes and collaborations with other projects.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/beeple-auction-christie...
"However, with NFTs, the owner typically does not get the copyright and can’t collect royalties from the art. That usually remains with the artist."
> If no copyright is transferred what is the purpose of owning an 'original' meme which is most likely also a copy?
Hmmmm... Please don't ask questions like that, you're bumming everyone out.
So does buying a 1992 Honda Civic from a guy give you the right to make more 1992 Honda Civics (not quite 1:1 with copyright, but you get the idea) -- no. Could Honda sell you a 1992 Honda Civic and also the right to make more 1992 Honda Civics? Sure.
Some NFT platforms have legal licenses that e.g. state that the holder of the NFT gets some specific (possibly exclusive) rights to the connected artwork.
re "copyright rights", depending on what you mean by that note that with a traditional painting being sold the buyer also does not get to do whatever they want with the image, since the original copyright remains with the author. (e.g. you can't take a painting you bought and sell prints of it)
This means,
* Everybody still can copy and distribute it without your permission.
* No protection by Law/ Policy in Digital World. I don't know if NFT will do that for you on behalf.
* Like many others say, they trade NFTs, but not the work itself. Say, NFT of 50 Million valuation between two entities. Very fancy numbers ...similar to a board game.
You could own a very expensive URL that goes to 404 - Not Found.