News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense. Parent comment

Re:Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense by negroni on Wednesday December 08, 2021 @03:10PM (#29489805)
> "Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer."

It may be the case for Ubisoft. However, some NTFs include the IP rights. For example, if you bought a Bored Ape NFT, you'd have the rights to use that Ape any way that you want. You can license it out for a Cartoon. Movie or Comic Book. Sell T-shirts, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense by andybak on Wednesday December 08, 2021 @04:37PM (#29490851)
> However, some NTFs include the IP rights.

Which surely exists separately from the blockchain in conventional contract law?

An NFT can't "include" IP rights. A notice on a website where you buy it might have a grant of contract rights.

Once again - the blockchain adds nothing or very little in return for a ton of technical complexity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense by pavlov on Wednesday December 08, 2021 @04:11PM (#29490563)
A license of mostly theoretical usefulness, considering what those apes look like.

You could purchase a custom illustration for $5 from Fiverr that would look better than a generated ape, be more suitable for your use case, and also comes with full rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]