My favorite part of this story is every place I've seen it posted just posts the original meme image along with it.
What exactly does the NFT owner own? Do they get royalties from this use of the image?
Or do they just own a sort of "trading card" that says "Disaster Girl" on it and that has no really actual value beyond the novelty of it being an NFT, that's going to drop in value to nothing almost instantly as people begin to realize that there's nothing preventing anyone from making exact duplicates of the
* That gives them the ability to say they own the URL to the meme created by the subject or someone who is impersonating the subject. * The ability to resale it as the above
That does not:
* Give them copyright to the photo, which actually belongs to the photographer and not the subject. * Give exclusive use to the photo either in terms of access, viewing, or making monetary profit from derivative wo
Actually it doesn't even give them full rights to resell the NFT: "But in minting the NFT, Zoe and Dave coded the token so that anytime the NFT is bought, the Roths receive 10 percent of the sale. And while the sale of the NFT represents a transfer of proof of ownership, they keep the copyright."
If you can't sell it without without paying a commission to the previous owner, then have you even bought it at all? Or just a 90% stake in it?
That's a very common element of copyright contract law. Books, movies, and music often have contracts that effectively sell the rights to a work in return for a percentage of royalties like that. Like Warner Bros Studios owns a collection of rights for the Harry Potter IP, they sold that to JKR in exchange for a monetary sum including a percentage of profits. They own the Harry Potter movies even though a collection of entities including JKR will get a percentage of the revenue.
The only aspect about it that is unique is generally that aspect of contract law hasn't historically applied to a non-reproducible work. Like Banksy isn't earning money when his work is resold. That's actually an element of NFTs which are arguably better than traditional media and I'm curious if sculptors and painters one day will get that as well.
contracts that effectively sell the rights to a work in return for a percentage of royalties like that
This probably is not legally enforceable with the sale individual copies; It would be a Post-Sale restraint [wikipedia.org] on a consumer transaction.
These types of contracts work but only because the Copyright being sold already contains legal rights to royalties - the seller retains an interest in the sale, and 100% of the rights are not included in the sale.
In the US the Copyright Holder or Patent Holder does not reta
My favorite part of this story (Score:2)
My favorite part of this story is every place I've seen it posted just posts the original meme image along with it.
What exactly does the NFT owner own? Do they get royalties from this use of the image?
Or do they just own a sort of "trading card" that says "Disaster Girl" on it and that has no really actual value beyond the novelty of it being an NFT, that's going to drop in value to nothing almost instantly as people begin to realize that there's nothing preventing anyone from making exact duplicates of the
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
They own the URL to the meme which I believe is pointing right here: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeQ6c5Hd... [ipfs.io]
That gives:
* That gives them the ability to say they own the URL to the meme created by the subject or someone who is impersonating the subject.
* The ability to resale it as the above
That does not:
* Give them copyright to the photo, which actually belongs to the photographer and not the subject.
* Give exclusive use to the photo either in terms of access, viewing, or making monetary profit from derivative wo
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't sell it without without paying a commission to the previous owner, then have you even bought it at all? Or just a 90% stake in it?
Re:My favorite part of this story (Score:2)
That's a very common element of copyright contract law. Books, movies, and music often have contracts that effectively sell the rights to a work in return for a percentage of royalties like that. Like Warner Bros Studios owns a collection of rights for the Harry Potter IP, they sold that to JKR in exchange for a monetary sum including a percentage of profits. They own the Harry Potter movies even though a collection of entities including JKR will get a percentage of the revenue.
The only aspect about it that is unique is generally that aspect of contract law hasn't historically applied to a non-reproducible work. Like Banksy isn't earning money when his work is resold. That's actually an element of NFTs which are arguably better than traditional media and I'm curious if sculptors and painters one day will get that as well.
Re: (Score:2)
contracts that effectively sell the rights to a work in return for a percentage of royalties like that
This probably is not legally enforceable with the sale individual copies; It would be a Post-Sale restraint [wikipedia.org] on a consumer transaction.
These types of contracts work but only because the Copyright being sold already contains legal rights to royalties - the seller retains an interest in the sale, and 100% of the rights are not included in the sale.
In the US the Copyright Holder or Patent Holder does not reta