There's a difference if the author of the art is the one that minted the NFT.
It's like jack dorsey selling an NFT of the first tweet compared with any random person trying to do the same.
What rights do you actually have in a tweet?
Which of those rights are actually transferable?
What rights do you have in a tweet that you made in your capacity as an employee of a company?
What rights do twitter as a company have with respect to tweets? Or to impose restrictions on the ability of people to transfer rights with respect to tweets?
Right. This is an example of the dumbest kind of NFT. It's not even a signed original, it's just a token that says "You own the thing!" but for a resource that anyone could download anyway and ownership isn't tied to use or display. It's about what I expect from Jack.
At least with cryptokitties, love em or hate em, the NFT was the character and the permission, so while anyone could admire your cat nobody but you could publish actions from it.
And only as long as people recognize your NFT claim to ownership as even being valid. Other people may view that brag as being as sad as someone bragging about their land holdings on the moon: https://lunarland.com/.