Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrochkind1 | Hacker News Reader

When someone bought this NFT (or in general), did someone sign a contract with you saying they transferred ownership in the intellectual property the NFT "represented"? (Ie, was at the other end of the URL, I guess?)

Cause the NFT itself means nothing to courts or laws, does it?

If someone owns the copyright in that video, they can send YouTube takedown notices. But what, if anything, makes NFT proof of ownership of copyright? How do you even know the person that sold it to you had the copyright to transfer, and did they transfer it?

One of the things that seems irraitional about this NFT market.

View on HN

NFTs generally aren't a transfer of copyright.

> An NFT is a bit like a collectible certificate of authenticity, but 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.

So the whole question is moot. All you own is the NFT and the NFT is associated with some cultural artifact but doesn't represent any legal rights. Like other cryptocurrencies it's a speculative asset whose value is based on the fact that people want to buy them and little else.

The question seems to be subject to a lot of confusion. A lot of other people in this thread seem to believe differently.

The article in the OP also seems to believe differently, which is what made me ask the question.

> But now the much-loved clip of baby Charlie gnawing on his brother Harry's finger will be taken off YouTube after it was sold for $760,999 (£538,000).

> The Davies-Carr family auctioned the clip as an NFT, a non-fungible token.

The quote says the video was sold, and that this will naturally result in it being removed from you tube, and then explains it was sold "as an NFT" which is "like a certificate to say that you own something digital".

I think you may be right, but the majority of people talking about NFT's don't seem to realize it. Including a bunch of people in this thread.

The owners can choose to remove the video from YouTube if they want. If the buyers are at least half-savvy, the sellers might opt to do that in order to give the NFT more 'worth'. But there's nothing inherent in NFT that means that's necessary, or that they couldn't just put it back on YouTube next week. Or that they couldn't sell hundreds of other NFTs for the same video, or sell the copyright to the video, the one thing in all this that's really meaningful.

This was kind of my question too. I am still yet to properly understand what the point in owning an NFT tied to a piece of digital art is.

Traditionally owning art is meaningful because you get to display it in your home/office etc. The artwork is intrinsically valuable as a unique material object. Digital art, on the other hand, can be duplicated easily so there is nothing you can point to and say "this is the original".

I don't see how that is synonymous with owning traditional art, you don't have anything unique since everyone can "own" Charlie bit my finger as much as the NFT owner owns it. We can watch the video whenever we want, even if it's taken down off of the official YT channel, there are thousands of copies everywhere. So unless you own the rights to the video and royalties or whatever then all you have is an NFT token that symbolizes something important to whoever thinks it's important (much like currency).

Seems to me that an NFT itself is more like a vanity plate on a car than anything else, basically bragging rights that you can sell on if anyone else sees value in bragging. I suppose the gamble is that NFTs will continue to mean something to someone but it does seem to me to be a long bet that people with piles of cash are hedging or simply don't mind paying $$$s for a fashion statement.

Art doesn't have any natural utility. No one is spending millions on a Picasso because they get millions of dollars of value out of looking at it.

Expensive art is just as much a vanity plate as NFTs are.

I don't think it means nothing to a court,even if it isn't a formal contract. Verbal agreements also carry some weight in court in most jurisdictions, they just aren't as bulletproof. I would guess an nft is somewhere on that level?

> Cause the NFT itself means nothing to courts or laws, does it?

We won't know till it's tried in court, but given that handshake agreements can carry weight in court if they can be proven, I'd suspect an NFT could be binding.

Is there a handshake agreement that copyright was transferred? Do the NFT auction sites say anything about this?

What if the seller says "Oh, you thought I was selling you the copyright in the thing the NFT represents? I don't know how you got that idea, I never said that! I just sold you the NFT, that's it." Do people buying NFT's actually get some kind of agreement that the seller owned the copyright in the thing represneted and sold it with the NFT purchase?

Real questions, I don't use these things!

Aren't the people who are selling NFTs attaching terms and conditions to the effect of "this doesn't give you actual ownership"? In fact, the article states:

> its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself

One of these days I'll get the point of NFT.

Maybe. If I do, I guess I can sell that event as an NFT. Or something.

This is covered in the article.

I've read the article three times now, I'm not sure which part you are talking about. Could you quote the passage?

> its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself

Reply on news.ycombinator.com