The world of NFTs is one where anything can happen at any time. The arena is still evolving, and there are many different models for how things work. This includes the occasional heated debate about models for ownership and intellectual property, something that’s sure to keep you on your toes.
The floor is typically a safe haven for gamers, but on those rare occasions where things get out of control and degenerates start flipping pixelated frogs, it can be seen as anything from funny to shocking. When the Philosophical JPG collector is done with his thought-provoking ruminations on art and what it means to be an artist, he’ll likely go out into public wearing a hoodie covered in roses.
And then, to keep you running, there will be an impromptu online legal seminar about Intellectual Property and how the law applies in this new age of technology. Are all the lawsuits coming for copyright infringement?
Which models of ownership are available and in use? What kind of model do you prefer for your company, organization, or business – If we’re going, to be honest, there’s a lot of models out there and some can get pretty confusing. Makes sense!
When you buy an NFT, it means that for the first time ever in this world an item has actual meaning. It’s not just something to decorate your house or office; now every piece of art is truly unique and yours alone!
It also means there are new challenges when owning such blockchain-based game changers as these: how do we protect our investments from theft? Who gets access – will I always know what my neighbor knows about me because he owns one too? It is important to note that intellectual property does not always belong exclusively to creators; sometimes an individual or company might license their work out instead.
It’s a bit odd, in my opinion: you have ownership of something that shows you have ownership of something else. And, because copyright rights over the underlying asset remain with the original inventor, your purchase is largely useless other than looking at and celebrating your delight in possession.
However, if this appears to be a waste of time and nonsense, know that you are about to plunge into an extremely deep metaphysical whirlpool in which you will need to speak on value, scarcity, and authenticity, at which point you may end up believing everything is meaningless and silly but still want to own a CryptoPunk.
Furthermore, this is nothing new. When you buy a work of art in the form of traditional art or photography, for example, you’ll encounter the same copyright issues as with digital music. In general, when you acquire a piece of art from any media, you don’t acquire rights to the copyright.
My two cents on NFTs and Creator-owned IP: Only a certain sort of NFT feels at home in this world. It’s a conservative approach that, like pre-blockchain real-world standards, takes a wait-and-see attitude. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that conservatism is bad. However, I’m not sure if this model is the best fit in a transgressive industry like crypto and NFTs. Perhaps it’s only appropriate for a small group of projects.
This may be the case with the CryptoPunks collection. Punks are, after all, the ultimate blue-chip. The value of a Punk is just from being a Punk; it derives no historical significance. It’s possible that Fidenzas and other Art Blocks works, which seem to be comparable in nature to traditional art, are also included. These are the kinds of things that may bring Christie’s and Sotheby’s sales as well as media attention from art critics.
This is the typical world standard model, but NFTs are intriguing because they allow for several ownership models that are more adaptable, flexible, and resilient than those currently used in the art market.
With this approach, you not only get the token when you buy an NFT; you also gain rights to the IP that pertains to the underlying asset.
This isn’t usual when it comes to purchasing art since the IP generally stays with the creator. As a result, giving an IP to the collector may make acquiring an NFT appear more appealing, open to experimentation, and even more enjoyable.
With this approach, you not only acquire possession of a photo but also an asset that you may use as you wish if you want to be creative, and it might seem like you’re getting more substance for your money.
This is what NFTs are meant to be used for, and it works as intended. As a result of this, you may buy real-world goods using cryptocurrencies that otherwise wouldn’t have been available – like Snakebyte’s Rocker Switch which allows you to change the channel without fumbling around on your remote or even getting up from your sofa.
Creative Commons (CC0)
This implies that the asset’s IP does not belong to anybody, not even the asset’s creator or buyer. Since it is in the public domain, there is total liberty and infinite creativity, allowing anybody to utilize the photos in any way they choose. Nouns Blitmap Cryptoadz is two significant galleries that were sold under a CC0.
The fundamental libertarian idea that government should be limited in order to maintain maximum individual freedom is still alive and well on the internet, as evidenced by platforms like Reddit. This is the nearest approach to an open-source radically libertarian philosophy that characterized the web in its early days, but it has perished owing to the concentration of power around Big Tech giants.
Personally, I’m not sure if it’s really in line with crypto and NFTs. After all, while crypto (or Web3, if you like) is all about decentralization (and that is a wonderful thing), it is also about maintaining immutable records of ownership and personal sovereignty over your digital identity and assets.
In the end, it all comes down to the specific tastes of each creator, as they balance what their project is supposed to accomplish. However, while numerous ownership structures may coexist at once, it is essential that.