You can still right-click save-as that overpriced jpeg and use it in a hexagonal twitter profile pic. You just need to go through the additional step of minting a fresh NFT.
Other things that are overpriced to a pure pragmatist: getting your name in the credits of a video by a youtube creator you'd like to support. Tickets to a recital for a recent graduate raising money to travel during audition season. Getting a museum wing named after you. Appointing a poet laureate.
If you want to live in a world where artists can afford to devote a majority of their time to their art instead of day jobs, you have to tolerate that systems are built to fund them, even if you balk at some of the most sensational price tags or artists' tastes.
Sure, maybe that is one possible usage, i.e. artists getting paid for art, but for now there doesn’t seem to be any patronage happening. It’s all corporate press pushes or scammy looking behaviors.
If you think NFTs are such a syste, you're mistaken.
Some say that if it’s relentlessly ugly enough it’ll make itself non-fungible.
Of course violating a copyright will subject you to civil damages and in certain circumstances may be criminal.
Sometimes when you are a copyright holder it is nearly impossible to prove a fake and/or identify the counterfeiter, the idea a fake can be immediately verified via blockchain and the pirate connected to a Twitter account would generally be a welcome change in the world of copyright enforcement.
Additionally, good luck getting a court recognize opensea as a source of copyright when it's drowning in copyright infringements. I can just mint your NFT somewhere else and it'll be just as valid.
Some do, some don’t, the industry standard ”NFT License” transfers limited rights. You seem to pretty confident and feel strongly, but as an example the owners of apes you are calling dumbasses for buying apes and not having ownership, do in fact receive a license to the apes they own.
It’s pretty common for infringing NFTs and infringing collections to be removed from OpenSea using DMCA takedown requests. OpenSea is the biggest marketplace in the space and centralized so they have that power (but it doesn’t remove the infringing NFT from the blockchain). Twitter already has a built in DMCA takedown request process and team, I’m sure they will process them for official profile NFTs. And there is always the court as the last resort for copyright infringement, which you don’t seem to believe in.
Sure you can copy and “mint” an NFT all you want, no different than any other copyrighted digital work can be copied and reproduced…but you would be violating the law in either case.
Why do you think copyright protections don’t apply to NFTs and copyrights can’t be enforced when they happen to be NFTs?
None of them do.
> the industry standard ”NFT License” transfers limited rights.
It doesn't. (Also, there's no "industry standard for NFTs")
> but as an example the owners of apes you are calling dumbasses for buying apes and not having ownership, do in fact receive a license to the apes they own.
No, they don't. They receive a hash pointing to a location that may or may not contain that ape, ... and that's it.
> Sure you can copy and “mint” an NFT all you want, no different than any other copyrighted digital work can be copied and reproduced…but you would be violating the law in either case.
And the law has literally nothing to do with NFTs.
> Why do you think copyright protections don’t apply to NFTs and copyrights can’t be enforced when they happen to be NFTs?
Yes, they do. Yes, they can. And they have to do with the actual art being sold, and have nothing to do with NFTs.
Well you proved you don’t know the market at all and you’re willing to just make stuff up, so it’s kind of difficult to engage.
Anyone can make an NFT and they can attach any IP rights they want to the NFT, it can be a copyright assignment, it can be a license or it can be none. The market utilizes all the above.
> No, they don't. They receive a hash pointing to a location that may or may not contain that ape, ... and that's it.
There are underlying legal contracts that are enforceable in court that license the copyrighted work to the owners.
For fuck sake owners of Apes have used their commercial license to do everything from make comic books, to make beers, one ape owner even recently signed a partnership deal Adidas for their ape.
I know how the real world works. So no need to make stuff up.
> Anyone can make an NFT and they can attach any IP rights they want to the NFT, it can be a copyright assignment, it can be a license or it can be none. The market utilizes all the above.
That's not how copyright works.
To quote U.S. Copyright Office, "Mere ownership of a copy or phonorecord that embodies a work does not give the owner of that copy or phonorecord the ownership of the copyright in the work."
Besides, with NFT you don't even own a "copy or a phonorecord".
> There are underlying legal contracts that are enforceable in court that license the copyrighted work to the owners.
If there's an underlying legal contract, then that contract governs the license/copyright transfer, and not the NFT.
NFT literally mean zero. Nothing about them is legally binding or enforceable. They are the definition of made up.
> For fuck sake owners of Apes have used their commercial license
1. Commercial license is not copyright
2. For a commercial license you literally have no need for NFTs
So they don't get copyrights, they get a license. Do you go around saying you get the copyright to Final Fantasy when you buy a copy on Steam ? After all, you got a license.
Does buying Final Fantasy give you any commercial rights? No!
Again some NFTs do give you full copyright. What final fantasy or other video game have you ever bought where you received the full copyright?
The industry standard NFT License on the other hand gives holders commercial rights to monetize their NFT up to a few hundred thousand dollars a year.