Which rights? Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. Beyond that, the ownership of the token is enforced by the blockchain, and that ownership token is the thing people value.
From what I gather a blockchain doesn't enforce anything. It simply states who owns what. Anybody can create a blockchain and own the world's entire supply of gold according to that blockchain. But can they enforce that ownership? No, they can't.
It doesn’t even do that. You can easily have one unique NFT claiming it represents ownership of the Mona Lisa, and another, unique and distinct NFT, also claiming ownership of the Mona Lisa. Besides ownership being unenforced, uniqueness is also unenforced.
But that's not how NFTs are being used now. For one, who would issue the Mona Lisa NFT, the Louvre, or Leonardo's family, or the family of his patron at the time? An NFT can't clear up a murky issue anymore than me writing you a paper receipt would.
But, a paper receipt is all that differentiates print #1 from #1005, and #1 is usually more prestigious. And even if those prints came off the machine in the other order, the actual artist is still attaching significance to one of them over the others.
NFTs are a way of saying that my identical print (file) is really the special one. Or that I'm special for having it. Or whatever.
It’s just like you having a paper receipt with #1 on it, and me also having a receipt with #1 on it. Both can be on the same blockchain at the same time, issued by different NFT ‘creators’. Or maybe on different blockchain... Which one is the ‘real’ one? No-one can say.
Do you not crypto? It's clear which address mints an NFT, and that address can be provably linked to the party with the keys. And they can put that proof on their website. You do know your favorite artists website, right?
So yeah, by looking at both NFTs we can clearly determine which is authentic.
If they're supposed to be unique, as opposed to 'we both sponsored the same art', then there are easy ways to ensure that.
For this reason, blockchains are not used that way - it does not track ownership of physical objects, it tracks ownerships of digital ones. If the blockchain says you own the only digital edition that Beeple created for his artwork, then this is so, because the blockchain states this.
If Beeple creates another NFT referring to the same work, then he is simply creating a second edition, in the same way that an artist can create a run of prints limited to 10, and later decide to create 10 further prints.
If someone else creates an NFT claiming to represent Beeples work, then this is like me selling my own unauthorized Robert Rauschenberg print, which I might find difficult to find a buyer for, though with enough talent, maybe not impossible.
In any case, the NFT is merely a digital equivalent of a print.
A digital equivalent of a print is an image file. The NFT has no real-world equivalent. Purportedly it "represents" the artwork, somehow, but in reality it's just a digital token with no connection whatsoever with the artwork.
But what rights would you need to go to court for? The point of an NFT is that the provided rights are exercisable without further permission.
Also, if the author wanted to control the NFT they'd just code it that way, for instance to prevent sales, or prevent more than one sale per decade, etc.
Sure they are, the original contract was that the blockchain asset was authoritative. If you buy that asset then you obviously share that view. If the asset has limited transferability, well you agreed to that. It was in the code for you to test for, if not read.
No, but purchasing it effectively will. If I create a software-license rental NFT which you have to refill periodically, you won't be able to force me to provide full coverage to that software. Even if you purchased it from someone else without being told the rules - the NFT encodes them and you'd be expected to read it and know the limitations on your claim.
If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially.
If you buy a second-hand concert-ticket NFT the requirements of attendance will still need to be met before you can use it.
> If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially.
I don't think it's plausibly true now because of the complexity of that contract and the difficulty in expressing it, jurisdictional issues, etc.
But if all that was handled and it was considered binging between you and the first guy then I don't think the transferability would phase a court at all. The NFT by nature, being meant to be transferred, and with tools to prevent that where desired, would indicate intent.
Perhaps a better example would be me (the hypothetical creator of cryptokitties) selling a cryptokitty, with the obvious implication that I would not modify my game to invalidate said kitty. The final owner of the kitty, like yourself, could sue me for misrepresentation for selling a product I intended to disable. Perhaps for tortious interference.
