Digital “jurisdictions” like Twitter are starting to support displaying “verified” NFTs though: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bragging-rights-twitter-previ...
The next step in the chain is OpenSea, which sounds like they will enforce real world copyrights: https://support.opensea.io/hc/en-us/articles/4404423595667-H...
So basically Twitter is outsourcing copyright enforcement via NFTs. Which actually doesn’t sound totally useless, but could also be done without a blockchain.
Now, when many content displayers (websites, games, multiverses, etc) outsource their copyright enforcement to multiple copyright-enforcers maybe using the blockchain starts making more sense.
Blockchain only makes “sense” because it's hype. (And regarding Twitter, it's mostly because @Jack is a total crypto believer).
I think a blockchain can still be useful in federated systems.
How so? As soon as you have to trust someone, you've lost the only benefit of blockchains and using one would only give the terrible performance characteristic of those for no benefit.
Each trusted enforcer having its own database is a way better architecture.
Tying a copyright license (at least non exclusive) to the NFT transfer sounds not that far fetched. It would be a little bit tricky to make that work globally but you could probably do that as well.
The question is would courts accept it as a valid contacts and how to enforce them. How would NFT prevent infringement (aka mme creating the latest bansky NFT)?
It's indeed what some artists and some of the NFT marketplaces do.
All of the things you've mentioned already exist, with a lot less effort. Copyright law is well established on digital goods. Contract/IP law is well established.
If NFTs have utility, beyond greater fool theory, then surely it will exist beyond having to go replicate all of these web2/tradfi/whatever concepts. Otherwise, what's the point?