Re:Someone downloaded 80k Winamp skins and is now selling th...
by pornel on Saturday December 04, 2021 @08:20PM
(#29445934)
NFT itself doesn't contain any copyrighted material, so it's rather not a derivative work. It's technically a URL with extra steps.
On a technical level NFTs seem to be completely separated from copyright. Even if they weren't, people making them could try to claim it's Fair Use (a transformative work or merely referring to a work).
But it really needs to be tested in court. I wouldn't be surprised if the judgement depended on whether the seller says "buy this artwork" vs "buy this token of an artwork" or details like that.
It also has interesting connection to "link tax" laws. News orgs are lobbying for laws to make linking a some form of copyrightable use, to get Google to pay for linking to news articles. If NFTs linking to copyrighted material get a legal status, it may set a precedent for other types of links.
On a technical level NFTs seem to be completely separated from copyright. Even if they weren't, people making them could try to claim it's Fair Use (a transformative work or merely referring to a work).
But it really needs to be tested in court. I wouldn't be surprised if the judgement depended on whether the seller says "buy this artwork" vs "buy this token of an artwork" or details like that.
It also has interesting connection to "link tax" laws. News orgs are lobbying for laws to make linking a some form of copyrightable use, to get Google to pay for linking to news articles. If NFTs linking to copyrighted material get a legal status, it may set a precedent for other types of links.