https://www.coindesk.com/brooklyn-bridge-nft

"entitles the holder to the representation of the Brooklyn Bridge depicted herein"

Google holds the copyright for that map image.

Then I realized that no, the Mars example is outdated although the scam still exists. It’s more like an acre of land on Pluto because while still unlikely it’s possible that land rights on Mars could be meaningful in our lifetime, but those one acre on Mars certificates will definitely not be.

The NFTs that you hear about that are being sold for high amounts are created by people that already have reputations. Unlike stars or plots on the moon every NFT has an artist that created it.

Artists and buyers share an implicit (by contact through the platform, in their promotion, etc) agreement.

The OP’s point can be said about pieces where the minter does not have the rights to sell the NFT. We have seen some examples of this in the NFT space (as we have with physical art/property/items).

However: in cases where the minter has the provenance, the analogy falls flat, and instead we can talk about NFTs as an upgrade to the art of previous generations.

Someone created an NFT of the periodic table of elements where you can "collect" and "own" the elements.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people selling stars would move their business to NFTs.

The genius scammers who managed to turn timestamp signing into an art form free from all responsibility for the "service" they monetize.

If someone can't explain something simply, walk away and don't give them your money.

DHT and are new and NFTs are a completely different model of ownership, with it's own model of value.

If you really peice it out you'll find that it's the strongest (but not necessarily useful) form of "digital" ownership that we've got.

But I suppose the platform leads people to believe that it's the original owners that created that signed hash (not that this means anything) and the illusion that this mattered is important for the auctioning behavior.

I wonder how regulators will react to this. Probably best to not regulate this at all, so that people realize that all NFTs are ultimately meaningless and the they die out quickly.

This can be plainly seen by looking at the flood of NFTs on opensea that have never been purchased.

It's not a coincidence that the most expensive NFTs are linked to a celebrity, meme or established artist.

I'm not sure about direct profits, but I usually assume things like this are part of some convoluted money laundering scheme.

The entire thing is a scam designed to get time in the news. Never forget what kind of folk you're dealing with in this space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneCoin

I know it's a typo but FWIW, I would buy NTFS for $80k :-)

Remember back when GoldenPalace.com would do stuff like buy grilled cheeses shaped like Jesus and stuff for a million dollars? I thought that was so stupid, who cares? It’s just a cheap way to buy publicity and probably better than a million dollars in advertising.

I thought it was stupid, but people are busy and just getting a second of time for large numbers of people is possible to monetize.

So these stupid novelty things are likely guerrilla marketing at best, pump and dump fraud at worst. It’s like the olden days where you could start a social media storm with a few accounts and small amount of money.

Different platforms have different requirements to be authenticated. Most tailored platforms will have specific agreements against creating the same artwork on a different platform.

But some include rights to the meme itself like this https://foundation.app/ryder_ripps/deal-with-it-2966