What you’re buying is a non fungible token on a specific contract. This contact may link to an external resource for the image. It should be IPFS but some contracts link to a specific IPFS gateway. Either way [with IPFS] the link contains a cryptography secure ID of the image. Sometimes the contract just links to a private website.
The owner of the NFT does not own the image and certainly not its copyright. They own a number inside a specific “smart” contract.
The copyright owner can also legally make another NFT for the same image set. In fact I think anyone can because the links to the images on IPFS aren’t copyrightable. Although [regular] contracts and defamation law might mess with that. Although they can’t then change the original smart contract outside its logic.
He gets the “rights” to “ownership” of the image. Whatever those two words may mean to the buyer, seller and everyone else.
It’s no different from how your landlord owns the house you live in, really. You’re in posession of it (live in it), but he’s written in some registrar the county keeps that says who owns what.
NFTs are similar in that regard. They’re like a land deed - they " both prove" you “own” something. However, land deeds are common in society (and courts take them into account, police throw out “squatters”, etc).
With NFTs? It might become the same as a land deed, where you do “own” the stupid image referenced in it as you own the house referenced in your land deed. All ownership is like this - you don’t need to “have physically” in order to “own”.
Will NFTs be the next land deed? Probably not. But they’re conceptually quite close. What makes the difference is wethersociety upholds them or not.
Just think of money: $50 canadian in cash is worthless in a US Walmart. You can’t use it to pay. With a card, it’s a different story.
And about that card: it’s also a similar situation. It doesn’t hold cash. It identifies your bank account and then the POS machine does some magic so your bank promises the money you paid will be taken from you and given to the store. Again, whatever that may mean (and entail).
So by the landlord analogy, if you were to “steal” the image and save a copy, you’d be the equivalent of squatters?
Except the comparison between “stealing” an NFT and squatting is the same as between pirating and movie and stealing a car, in that the owner of the digital object doesn’t actually lose anything like the physical one does.
The fact a land deed and an NFT do the same thing (serve as a proof of ownership) doesn’t mean a photo is land.
Ownership comes in different forms, and each is specific in a multitude of regards, including crimes against them. Land, vehicles, phones, money, art, IP,… Each slightly different from the rest. I nowhere made the equivalence you did. I merely said an NFT is like a land deed in that it “proves” “ownership”, whatever that may mean. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone who ever did a squat at the gym is a criminal by your logic.
A bunch of art in museums and galleries does not belong to the museum or the gallery, but rather to private parties. These parties own the art and have a document proving it, but anybody can visit the museum/gallery and photograph the art, or even purchase reproductions of the art.
No.
What you’re buying is a non fungible token on a specific contract. This contact may link to an external resource for the image. It should be IPFS but some contracts link to a specific IPFS gateway. Either way [with IPFS] the link contains a cryptography secure ID of the image. Sometimes the contract just links to a private website.
The owner of the NFT does not own the image and certainly not its copyright. They own a number inside a specific “smart” contract.
The copyright owner can also legally make another NFT for the same image set. In fact I think anyone can because the links to the images on IPFS aren’t copyrightable. Although [regular] contracts and defamation law might mess with that. Although they can’t then change the original smart contract outside its logic.
What exactly are the terms on that contract? The
suckerbuyer pays money and receives…?He gets the “rights” to “ownership” of the image. Whatever those two words may mean to the buyer, seller and everyone else.
It’s no different from how your landlord owns the house you live in, really. You’re in posession of it (live in it), but he’s written in some registrar the county keeps that says who owns what.
NFTs are similar in that regard. They’re like a land deed - they " both prove" you “own” something. However, land deeds are common in society (and courts take them into account, police throw out “squatters”, etc).
With NFTs? It might become the same as a land deed, where you do “own” the stupid image referenced in it as you own the house referenced in your land deed. All ownership is like this - you don’t need to “have physically” in order to “own”.
Will NFTs be the next land deed? Probably not. But they’re conceptually quite close. What makes the difference is wethersociety upholds them or not.
Just think of money: $50 canadian in cash is worthless in a US Walmart. You can’t use it to pay. With a card, it’s a different story.
And about that card: it’s also a similar situation. It doesn’t hold cash. It identifies your bank account and then the POS machine does some magic so your bank promises the money you paid will be taken from you and given to the store. Again, whatever that may mean (and entail).
No. As I said the buyer does not own the image. They known the token.
So by the landlord analogy, if you were to “steal” the image and save a copy, you’d be the equivalent of squatters?
Except the comparison between “stealing” an NFT and squatting is the same as between pirating and movie and stealing a car, in that the owner of the digital object doesn’t actually lose anything like the physical one does.
The fact a land deed and an NFT do the same thing (serve as a proof of ownership) doesn’t mean a photo is land.
Ownership comes in different forms, and each is specific in a multitude of regards, including crimes against them. Land, vehicles, phones, money, art, IP,… Each slightly different from the rest. I nowhere made the equivalence you did. I merely said an NFT is like a land deed in that it “proves” “ownership”, whatever that may mean. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone who ever did a squat at the gym is a criminal by your logic.
No, indeed you didn’t. It was my attempt at understanding just what ownership means in this case. Clearly, I didn’t. I’m still not sure I do.
I think a better analogy is with IRL art.
A bunch of art in museums and galleries does not belong to the museum or the gallery, but rather to private parties. These parties own the art and have a document proving it, but anybody can visit the museum/gallery and photograph the art, or even purchase reproductions of the art.
NFT is the document proving ownership.
Thank you for the explanation!