> Sunday's spending spree means the mysterious anonymous bidder will become the owner of the Charlie Bit My Finger clip.

> its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself - meaning the artwork the NFT represents can still be shown wherever the original artist or creator chooses.

Genuinely curious. What does it mean to own a widely shared digital content, if you don't have the copyright to it? What's stopping the copyright-owner from continuing to license the copyright to others, or even enforcing their copyright against you in future? From a legal perspective, how would the NFT owner even enforce their ownership against anyone else?