NFT's and Beanie Babies, interesting article

[Exhibitman]

The value of a copyright, patent or trademark on a digital image is the right to use it and sell the right to use it. If the NFT came with the copyright so you could license it then it would have some independent value. But as they stand now, they do not, so the comparison with other forms of intellectual property is inapposite.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The value of a copyright, patent or trademark on a digital image is the right to use it and sell the right to use it. If the NFT came with the copyright so you could license it then it would have some independent value. But as they stand now, they do not, so the comparison with other forms of intellectual property is inapposite.

And that is one of the reasons I can't fathom why people would be paying so much for these NFTs. Is it possible that some people actually feel they'll be able too generate some future income from an NFT? If that turns out not to be true, a lot of people may be in for a rude awakening.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BobC

And that is one of the reasons I can't fathom why people would be paying so much for these NFTs. Is it possible that some people actually feel they'll be able too generate some future income from an NFT? If that turns out to be true, a lot of people may be in for a rude awakening.

Well, greater fools theory is a thing. Plus some NFTs have embedded into the code information about the original owner, and every time it sells, a portion of the sale price is sent back to the creator's wallet. And some NFTs have the ability to be moved off one site (original purchase location) into a digital wallet somewhere else, to be sold on a different exchange or just stored there in case of crash/theft. TopShot minted their "moments" with the availability that they could be moved off-site, however Panini's original blockchain was more like an Excel spreadsheet with tracking and all transactions needed to stay there (so Panini gets a recurring cut of every sale).

[BobC]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Well, greater fools theory is a thing. Plus some NFTs have embedded into the code information about the original owner, and every time it sells, a portion of the sale price is sent back to the creator's wallet. And some NFTs have the ability to be moved off one site (original purchase location) into a digital wallet somewhere else, to be sold on a different exchange or just stored there in case of crash/theft. TopShot minted their "moments" with the availability that they could be moved off-site, however Panini's original blockchain was more like an Excel spreadsheet with tracking and all transactions needed to stay there (so Panini gets a recurring cut of every sale).

I hear you.

[Snapolit1]

Too funny.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The value of a copyright, patent or trademark on a digital image is the right to use it and sell the right to use it. If the NFT came with the copyright so you could license it then it would have some independent value. But as they stand now, they do not, so the comparison with other forms of intellectual property is inapposite.

A painting does not come with a copyright. Nor do many other types of intellectual property, yet the owner has rights to enforce its non-use and to license its use. I don’t want to get into a legal debate.

Regardless, the analogy is not perfect, but as mentioned, I am trying to explain it to “earth people”, like Bob (and me), for whom the concept of an NFT can be tough to grasp. And this analogy, while not perfect, is plenty close enough for that purpose

[lowpopper]

I was contacted to contribute to this article. I feel beanie babies will have a resurgence in some shape or form

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

A painting does not come with a copyright. Nor do many other types of intellectual property, yet the owner has rights to enforce its non-use and to license its use.

Actually, all creative works have an automatic copyright, called a common law copyright, but to qualify for the draconian protections of the Federal law you have to register the work in DC. Otherwise, you literally do not have the right to exploit the painting, unless the artist has sold you the copyright, it has passed into the public domain, or the use you want to make of it constitutes a fair use of the painting. You may be thinking about an artist's right to produce an image with independent artistic merit of an otherwise copyrighted item (like Warhol's Campbell's soup cans), but you do not have the right to simply take a picture of a card and produce reprints or license others to create reprint cards. Here is a fun read on the subject of a sexualized Barbie parody:

https://www.rcfp.org/artistic-photos...ate-copyright/

The Copyright Act limits the rights of a copyright owner regarding works that build upon, reinterpret, and reconceive existing works. ... The factors are "to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright." Id. at 578, 114 S.Ct. 1164. Depending on the particular facts, some factors may weigh more heavily than others. Id. at 577-79, 114 S.Ct. 1164. The four factors we consider are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Dr. Seuss, 109 F.3d at 1399-1404 (analyzing and applying 17 U.S.C. § 107)."

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792 (2003)

[Gary Dunaier]

94-Piece Jumbo Beanie Baby Set - a special offer from the Beanie Babies Showroom, with your hosts Don West and Robert Chambers