The notary can be a public, decentralized and distributed ledger like a Blockchain. The signature and signed copy then can be "scarce" like are signed posters right?
I cannot name a single moment in the history of my life where another person has asked me who "owns" a piece of digital art. I know people who asked about the author, but nobody cares about the owner.
Unless your ownership confers some sort of meaningful control over the piece, society will entirely ignore your rules and distribute the work however they want. It's not like you can take the case to court, anyways. You're role-playing on a extralegal asset, not a tallying stocks and bonds.
So even though in the case of Blockchain the owner has control over the piece (signature), do you think that the disconnect between "signature" and the fungible digital work is too big or meta and we should rather reconsider how we think of art, scarcity and those old dynamics? In this case will the artist signature and chain of provenance and creator<>collector connection be useless?
nobankai|11 months ago
Unless your ownership confers some sort of meaningful control over the piece, society will entirely ignore your rules and distribute the work however they want. It's not like you can take the case to court, anyways. You're role-playing on a extralegal asset, not a tallying stocks and bonds.
0xG|11 months ago
Gaming8392|11 months ago
[deleted]