Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss
I think some NFTs make sense, even a lot of sense. I think NFTs are similar to trade marks or copywrites, which are hardly novel. Trade Mark is defined as "A name, symbol, or other device used to identify and promote a product or service, especially an officially registered name or symbol that is thereby protected against use by others." A trade mark is an ownership interest in an intangible item, and it has value -- the Nike Swoosh, Tony the Tiger, the McDonalds Arch, etc. There is no inherent value in the Nike Swoosh, and it can be seen everywhere and be reproduced easily, but that sucker is a worth a buttload!
A copywrite is defined as "the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)". You can hear Hey Jude by the Beatles all over the radio. You can sing it yourself and learn it on the guitar. Yet someone owns the rights to that song and can license it and make real money. Plus, there is substantial value in owning the rights to Hey Jude
To me, NFTs are the "tangible" property version of a trade mark or copywrite. Take, for example, NFTs that are artwork or symbols. These make sense to me and I understand why they could have value. For example, you can see the image of Starry Night by Van Gogh everywhere and there are a zillion reproductions/copies. Yet there is only one original Starry Night by Van Gogh, and that original is priceless. Thus, if an artwork NFT was ever to gain huge popularity, I think having the original/the only actual would be very valuable, both in its own right and for licensing purposes.
Suppose someone created an NFT that served as the symbol for the BLM movement or the LBGQ rainbow. Even though the symbol is used everywhere and can be recreated easily, having the original/the actual NFT would have real value.
Thus, I understand this aspect of NFTs and why/how they can have value. THAT SAID, here is what I think does not make sense with NFTs:
1. They are relatively easy to make and there are so many of them being made. I dont know the percentage, but I would guess that less than 0.01% of all original artwork being produced today will be worth in a year (let alone 10 years) what it sells for in a gallery today; indeed, it may be relatively worthless. I fear there are so many NFTs out there, and more being made all the time, that everyone is rushing to own one (or more) and nobody will eventually care about a monkey with a blue beanie, just as nobody cares about another landscape painted in oil. Some NFTs will have major value, but I think it will be a very small percent and who knows which ones that will be.
2. I totally do not understand the plays/video clips. You are not going to license a block by Zion and you can find it all over the internet and who cares, let alone understands, that you "own" that video clip. To me, this is not like digital art or a symbol. I do not understand them
|
Ryan,
Not really into the NFT thinking myself because they aren't tangible items, but I think I can understand where you're coming from. It's something like saying that '52 Topps Mantle cards are all valuable, but there is only one '52 Mantle card that was the very first to ever be printed and come off the production line. And if that first ever one could be identified and verified, it could be worth even more money to at least some people. Am I on the right line of thinking?
If so, I wonder if the card companies ever thought of maybe taking the first ever sheet(s) of cards they produce for every set and begin setting them aside for some later promotion or sale as the designated first ever cards produced. Modern card production seems to be mostly about manufactured rarities. Well here's another type of rarity they've actually been producing all along, just never recognized and took advantage of before. People often collect milestone examples of things, ticket stubs from games where milestones are achieved, the actual ball hit or pitched for the milestone, etc. Along with designating the the first ever of each card produced, they could do the same thing at say the 1 millionth of each card produced. There's bound to be some suckers.......errrrrr, collectors that will happily pay more for that milestone card. These NFTs seem to be somewhat along the same lines then.
But here's a legal question then. If you do acquire an NFT, and then see someone posting or using an image of it elsewhere, can you take them to court to have it removed or taken down since they used it without having first gotten your permission to do so as the NFT owner? Or even better, if the party using an NFT image you own uses it without your permission, and they are in whatever manning somehow making money off that NFT image, can you also sue them for the profits they've earned off it (or at least some share of it)? And how does that work if someone posts and uses your NFT image without your permission, and then someone else besides them copies, re-sends, or otherwise uses that unauthorized image and somehow makes money off of it, can you as the NFT owner go after and sue these secondary users also? Or is my original thinking correct, and owning an NFT is like owning the first ever '52 Topps Mantle card ever produced? Anyone else can have and use their '52 Topps Mantle card any way they like, but you only own the first one produced, and have no say or control over what everyone else does with their own copy of the card.