"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Then I realized that no, the Mars example is outdated although the scam still exists.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.