Perhaps you can email Universal Talent Agency and tell them they are wrong. Trademarks and copyright infringement exists in the NFT world, just because you can mint an NFT doesn't mean you own the art associated, particularly if you didn't create it.
> Perhaps you can email Universal Talent Agency and tell them they are wrong.
About what? If anything, this goes to prove my point. These NFTs cannot "manage commercial and IP rights" to themselves, so Larva Labs has contracted with UTA to perform that task.
> Trademarks and copyright infringement exists in the NFT world, just because you can mint an NFT doesn't mean you own the art associated, particularly if you didn't create it.
Yes. Again, that's exactly the point I was making -- that a NFT does not "assure the authenticity and provenance" of anything.
Alright, it is a fair point that it isn't a closed system, but you have to start from somewhere in order to grow from there into something with more of a closed loop. At the end of the day, courts of law have to decide on the outcomes of contentions, and this holds true with traditional crypto as well. - Perhaps one day we'll see smart contracts which are honored by courts to uphold the contracts in a lawful way, if written in a specific way (like what Agrello is/was trying to do...dunno if they are still around), but it has to be built first, it can't be perfect day one out the door, it's a journey.
duskwuff|4 years ago
About what? If anything, this goes to prove my point. These NFTs cannot "manage commercial and IP rights" to themselves, so Larva Labs has contracted with UTA to perform that task.
> Trademarks and copyright infringement exists in the NFT world, just because you can mint an NFT doesn't mean you own the art associated, particularly if you didn't create it.
Yes. Again, that's exactly the point I was making -- that a NFT does not "assure the authenticity and provenance" of anything.
neuralzen|4 years ago