Can someone explain NFTs (Non-fungible tokens) and yes I have googled it.

more like, if you own a trademarked logo you can choose to screen print it on shirts and give them away or sell them

surely - and of course I didn’t mean to implicate anyone expressing such an individually strategic take on why they’re not for them

From that news article - “I’m not saying most #NFTs are scams operated by grifters and money launderers. I’m just saying Melania Trump is launching an #NFT.” As a grifter, that got me thinking of creating an NFT based around ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ 😉

This is incorrect. You have ownership of the NFT. You do not have ownership of any Copyright or other IP rights including adaptation or reproduction (There are of course exceptions).

This makes sense; just because I buy a painting, it doesn't mean I can reproduce it on teeshirts.

Buyers can own the copyright of an NFT. It just depends on the sales agreement with the creator. Some creators sell their NFTs in whole with transfer of copyright on sale while other creators sell the "print" but retain the rights.

But the real one has verifiable provenance.

If you create an NFT from it, you could market it that way. STANDY’s Cropped Screenshots might be the next Bored Apes Yacht Club. 😀

But really, provable provenance is one of the benefits of NFTs. Did a watch really go to space? You have to take someone’s word for it. There will never be any doubt that that particular NFT was awarded to a race winner.

Im not sure what you are disagreeing with.

It is obviously correct that the owner of a trademark (Pepsi), can choose to print Pepsi t-shirts bearing the logo and give them away, or allow a JV partner the rights to reproduce and use the trademark. Meanwhile, people can also without authorization screenshot the Pepsi logo, or bootleg it, with minimal risk of legitimate prosecution for infringement (unless put to material commercial purposes).

I used this obviously correct example RE trademark to merely point out that it is not a foreign idea to own a piece of “art” that is unique and valuable (the trademark itself), yet for their to also be numerous instantiations of that “art” free in the wild, duplicated legitimately, or illegitimately.

This example was relevant, whether or not completely analogous, because people were guffawing the idea that the NFT award was accompanied by a statement that others were allowed to download a copy of the image - suggesting this was bizarre, and somehow analogous to:

“So it's like if I buy a Ferrari, I own it. But anybody is free to sit in it or take it for a drive?”

It’s not bizarre, any more than Pepsi owns it’s trademark, that ownership is valuable, yet here I’ve just screenshot it, and each of you can now, too:





Since we’ve come this far, it’s worth completing the distinction:

Pepsi’s “ownership” of this trade mark exists entirely in reference to a body of trademark law that is esoteric, is documented by and through the existence of third party trademark offices, filings of voluminous descriptions on paper of design parameters, and when Pepsi seems to “share” rights in the trademark with JV partners must both create a document describing those parameters, then thereafter monitor and enforce compliance with the contract.

Conversely, the NFT’s ownership is demonstrable without reference to any third party authority, and as the owner the terms of any JV-like sharing or transfer of ownership can be “built into” the NFT itself such that authorized usage need no further documentation, monitoring, or enforcement.

While an imperfect description of the details, it’s a high level example of the potential of blockchain ownership, authentication, and royalty-like interests that can exist inherent to an object rather than having authority only in reference to an entire third party machinery.

So no, it’s not like buying a car but anybody can use it. Was the point.

Such Ts&Cs are a part of the blockchain, are they not?

For example, most all NFTs are impregnated with a royalty to the creator, which is necessarily and automatically paid to the creator upon any subsequent transfer of ownership on the blockchain.

My understanding is essentially any such so-called “smart contract” can be impregnated in an NFT’s blockchain.