Oh yeah it's all self enforced bullshit. But the crypto bros can't be the ones to tear it down otherwise the entire game of make believe ends. It's frankly hilarious. He has every right to claim it's still his by the law but doing it would mean that it's value would plummet anyway because it proves the whole market is children playing pretend.
The Alarm Is Sounding On NFTs
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
I can't tell if Green is being serious...
“I bought that ape in July 2021, and have spent the last several months developing and exploiting the IP to make it into the star of this show,” said Green during the Web3 conference, VeeCon. “Then days before — his name is Fred by the way — days before he’s set to make his world debut, he’s literally kidnapped.”
But I guess crypto bros are the kind of people who would use the word "exploit" and not think it makes them sound awful.
“I bought that ape in July 2021, and have spent the last several months developing and exploiting the IP to make it into the star of this show,” said Green during the Web3 conference, VeeCon. “Then days before — his name is Fred by the way — days before he’s set to make his world debut, he’s literally kidnapped.”
But I guess crypto bros are the kind of people who would use the word "exploit" and not think it makes them sound awful.
Oh yeah, they're very much "law of the jungle" type- y'know, fuck them over before they fuck you over- but then they get bit and start crying foul.
Common law pretty much holds that transfers of property should be final and the new owner should have full rights to do with the property what he/she wants. The legal document that transfers the property could include covenants that govern how the property has to be handled after it is transferred but those things are deemed to be legally problematic and there are rules that govern how enforceable they are based on public policy.
If Bored Ape Yacht Club transferred the copyright to Green then he has it and who owns the token is completely irrelevant. However, if Green merely received a limited license to use the image in creative projects than there could be a contract provision that strips him of the license if the token is transferred away from him either with or without his consent. I would bet good money that a US court would deem such a provision unenforceable in this situation since Green did not consent to having the token transferred and is in fact victim of a crime. AS public policy we do not punish people for being the victims of a crime.
The mistake you're making is considering the NFT to confer ownership of the image. It doesn't do that.
Green did not buy the image. If he had, then copyright would've transferred with it, as per regular intellectual property law. He bought a token on a blockchain that confers no ownership rights over the image. He was then conferred the copyright license by the owner, dependent on holding the token.
Last edited:
I think we are trying to make the same point.
A standard NFT gives its "owner" no rights in the real world. Green's case is special because actual legal rights were assigned to him.
The legal foundation of this depends on whether Green was given the full copyright or a limited license.
If he was given full copyright then he owns the image outright and the token is legally irrelevant. Losing the token has no legal effect on his ownership of the copyright and Bored Ape has no say in what he does with the copyright.
If he only has a limited license then the question is if the license addresses what might happen if the token is transferred without Green's consent (ie can Bored Ape revoke his license if the blockchain says that the token belongs to someone else). A court is likely to rule that an illegal transfer of the token is not legally relevant and that the token (and the associated license) still belong to Green (ie the blockchain record is wrong and legally non-binding)
Apparently all Bored Ape NFTs assign 'full copyright'* to the 'owner' of the token... at least that's what their T&Cs state. Of course, the rub is that they appear to consider 'possession' of the NFT to be ownership.
*not really, it's T&C compliance restricted, which you can't actually do with 'full copyright', so it's really an assignation of personal and commercial use rights.
Yeah, I can't see any court siding with "possession is 9/10th of the law" schoolyard bullshit against actual, you know, Law. Especially as provenance recording is supposed to be a strength of blockchain tech.
I don't really understand any of what just happened there and I'm sure as hell not looking it up. Suffice it to say, I'm confident nothing of value was lost here.
Turns out money laundering is still money laundering if you buy monopoly money instead of, say, a car wash.
Car wash is more useful anyway
Car wash is more useful anyway
I honestly don't know what the fuck the Bored Ape Yacht Club is supposed to be anymore besides pure comedic gold.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Imagine going to all that effort to steal monkey jpegs.
That's a punishment in and of itself.
That's a punishment in and of itself.
They collect the Bored Ape NFTs, the infamously ugly monkey ones. I assume they're a Yacht Club because they think NFTs will allow them to buy yachts one day (lol).
I mean, let's face it: not much effort goes into these thefts
Should have got Edi to secure it for you.
The NFT slump is real | TechCrunch
This is not an exercise in knocking back a few shots of haterade. Instead, it's a reminder that consumer demand for products like digital collectibles is fickle and ever-changing.
techcrunch.com
A lot of idiots and fools in the entertainment industry.
Anthony Hopkins Adopts Ethereum Name, Asks Snoop Dogg What NFT to Buy - Decrypt
The 84-year-old actor, who starred last year in one of the first films released via NFTs, is looking to buy his first NFT.
decrypt.co
Curio lets NFT die-hards browse, track and buy all in one browser tab | TechCrunch
Folks dedicated to the world of NFTs have access to loads of analytics and browsing tools, but none of them really work together. At least, that's how new
www.google.com
Strictly crypto currency rather than NFTs, but still.
Eh, they totally could have gotten in cahoots with some tiny nation that prints its own legitimate currency, and got them to print special but legit banknotes or something.
Just fucking why?
I swear this is like talking to someone who had the "brilliant" revelation that society doesn't need money but when asked how to transact trades of goods or services they describe a system that's basically money with a different name.