Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadrifoliate | Hacker News Reader

Not helping. The website says:

> For too long, ownership of Olive Garden franchises has been dominated by the capricious whims of the fiat system. That’s why we’re enabling anyone to trustlessly mint a nonfungible token representing 1 of 880 real Olive Garden franchises in the United States.

Again, they are falsely promising "ownership of a franchise" and "representation of a franchise" right there in the website. Nowhere does it say that the actual ownership will be of an image.

I suppose a skilled lawyer could make the case that they are obviously joking because all NFTs are worthless images, but that would be a bit of an uphill battle in my opinion given the deceptive wording here.

View on HN

I suggested that you read the FAQ, and you quoted the first paragraph on the site, a paragraph that's not in the FAQ.

>Again, they are falsely promising "ownership of a franchise" and "representation of a franchise" right there in the website.

First, ctrl+F "ownership of a franchise" brings up no results, so you're misquoting the website. Second, "representation" is a word that can be used loosely; the NFT can be a representation of the franchise, but that doesn't mean you legally own it. I could sell a stick figure drawing of myself that represents me, but that doesn't mean that you own me.

>Nowhere does it say that the actual ownership will be of an image.

Correct, but it does say, in the FAQ:

>While every Non-fungible Olive Garden is tethered to a real Olive Garden, ownership is currently limited to the Non-fungible Olive Garden Metaverse, granting owners no rights or privileges in meatspace Olive Gardens.

It goes on to say:

>Is this affiliated with Olive Garden?

>No.

I am really not sure how much clearer they can get than that.

> Again, they are falsely promising "ownership of a franchise" and "representation of a franchise" right there in the website. Nowhere does it say that the actual ownership will be of an image.

The first sentence is simply untrue. The second sentence is accurate on your part and on the creators' parts: you don't own the picture.

> The first sentence is simply untrue.

How is it untrue? I'll quote it in its entirety.

> For too long, ownership of Olive Garden franchises has been dominated by the capricious whims of the fiat system.

"For too long, ownership of X has been dominated by Y" is a typical sentence used in advertisements that go on to promise "Now, you too can own X" – so it's reasonable to think that the same is the implication in this case too, especially if your continuing sentence is "That’s why we’re enabling anyone to blah blah blah representing 1 of 880 real Olive Garden franchises in the United States."

Edit: after a bit more conversation and reading the page carefully, they are actually promising some ownership, but in a "Roadmap" as a sneaky way out:

> Use project funds to complete leveraged buyout of Darden Restaurants, Olive Garden's parent company. Upon successful completion, all NFOG franchise owners will now own real Olive Garden franchises.

>How is it untrue?

You misunderstand; they are referring to where you incorrectly quote the website as saying, "ownership of a franchise".

>"For too long, ownership of X has been dominated by Y" is a typical sentence used in advertisements that go on to promise "Now, you too can own X"...

Which they don't really do here, so that point is moot.

What they do go on to say is that you can mint an NFT that represents a franchise, but what you're misunderstanding is the word "represent". Anything can represent anything - the pancake I just made (hooray, breakfast for dinner!) can represent the White House. The bicycle in my garage can represent the International Space Station while I'm out playing with my kids. That doesn't mean that the pancake is the White House, or that my bicycle representing the ISS now means that I own the ISS. Quite simply, it means that for the sake of whatever I'm doing - discussing politics, playing with my kids, or making a parody website that makes fun of NFTs - the NFT itself represents a franchise just because. It sounds stupid, but so are NFTs, and that's the point.

That is why myself and others have stressed to you that you need to read the FAQ and the parts where the site goes on to confirm that you do not own, nor have rights to, any Olive Garden franchise just because you have an NFT that represents one.

> What they do go on to say is that you can mint an NFT that represents a franchise, but what you're misunderstanding is the word "represent". Anything can represent anything - the pancake I just made (hooray, breakfast for dinner!) can represent the White House. The bicycle in my garage can represent the International Space Station while I'm out playing with my kids.

My view is that convoluted arguments like this are fine for winning an argument with your friends, and maybe even on an orange website.

They are unlikely to cut ice with the legal system when you get hauled up for accepting money for some "representation" of a trademarked franchise. But I guess time will tell. A good experiment for the authors of this would be go on to offer NFT pictures of Disney characters next, and then go on to explain to Disney's lawyers how they aren't actually Finding Dory, just a token that is a representation of Finding Dory.

I'm also not a lawyer, but yeah, it sure feels like using the word "own" and having real money, real trades, and a trademarked name in the mix could be problematic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com