You are not listening and neither am I. I keep saying “denoted”. I have said “denoted” along but you keep going on about property rights.
My animations and prior art are registered with the copyrights office.
The idea that if you buy an oil painting you own something is not much different than getting a digital file except the copies of the digital file are infinite. The token is not infinite.
The idea the NFT is the original is sloppy thinking. The NFT as denoted is the unique token.
You happy now? LOL Or are you going to keep chasing your tail? Because we have been edging on endless philosophical questions.
The depends on how the smart contract is written. The next generation of contracts possibly not Eth based will license art. Part of the philosophical question is if you have an infinite number of copies you have not sold the art with the NFT. Whereas if the Louvre sells the Mona Lisa you have sold the actual canvas. Yes there is a big difference. No there is a very small difference and philosophy will take up both sides of that. Legally you have a digital file that denotes a tradeable asset primarily the token. Denotes is similar to painting a canvas. The paint denotes the canvas. More philosophy.
In its decision, the Southern District of New York held that traditional legal principles regarding property ownership apply to NFTs, and rejected the plaintiff’s “attempt to exploit open questions of ownership in the still-developing NFT field to lay claim to the profits of a legitimate artist and creator.”Jun 2, 2023
On March 17, 2023, the court dismissed that counterclaim, finding simply that because Yuga had not registered any copyrights in those images, there was “no case or controversy as to the issue of copyright infringement between Yuga and counterclaimants,” since Yuga could not assert such a claim in relation to unregistered works.
My comment I have registered my art. It would fall under traditional property rights.