Right, an NFT of off-chain property represents ownership of...the NFT. Its value is reliant on a community ascribing value to it. There are real world analogs to this type of ownership, but it's not as revolutionary as breathless NFT fans are making it out to be.

Agreed on the unlikelihood of NFTs supplanting event tickets. I'm just speculating on the type of novel product/ecosystem the technology enables. But building a compelling experience around this concept is a whole other challenge. It remains to be seen whether someone eventually does. Even if that happens, it doesn't mean we're talking about an entire new market of significance.

My point is more people can do it right now with zero blockchain involvement but they don’t because it’s not a good business decision.

I'm just using tickets as an anchor to something that already exists. My point is that if the credential of owning the NFT were recognized throughout an ecosystem of unrelated organizations, that might merit building it on a permissionless blockchain. Few people are bothering to explore such ideas. I think you're right about it being hard to monetize, but people once thought Facebook was hard to monetize.

I guess I'd just say absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, when it comes to the utility, but a level of outside-the-box thinking is required that no one's motivated to do when you can simply mint NFTs of URLs and sell them for absurd sums of money.

Fair points all around. Thanks for the clarification!

It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. If you are minting an NFT today, putting the file on IPFS, accepting the fact that it will be freely available across the internet, and selling to someone "digital ownership", you will I think fins it hard to convince a judge that you did not intend to grant such a license.

Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo.

> It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given.

No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned.

> Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo.

Nah anyone can do it any time.

> No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned.

No one is talking about assigning copyright. The question is about a license to display the content on a website. I am fairly certain you have heard of non-verbal contracts before. For example, here is what the UK government has to say about an implied copyright license:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copy...

> Nah anyone can do it any time.

Anyone can also sell a signature of Clooney. And yet no one does, nor would anyone buy it. This is not something that plays into a serious analysis of the NFT space, and so I am not sure why you would want to find it interesting to talk about.

Nfts explicitly grant exactly no rights whatsoever and you will not find a judge that will impose that burden.