At least the museum then owns the Rembrand and could, for example, charge people to come and see it, or increase the prestige of their museum by displaying it.
Whereas, with the Grumpy Cat NFT, someone, somewhere, can exhibit some bits that shows they "own"(?) this particular image of Grumpy Cat, which is reproduced millions of times across the internet. Does the NFT even convey the legal rights to the image? Can you send DMCA takedowns based on owning the NFT for an image? What even makes the NFT non-fungible?
In fact, if anyone wants it, I'll happily sell you the NFT https://robinmessage.com/nft/GrumpyCat for $100,000 and I'll promise:
- to probably never issue that NFT to anyone else;
- and that, in some ineffable way, it represents the original Grumpy Cat.
Whereas, with the Grumpy Cat NFT, someone, somewhere, can exhibit some bits that shows they "own"(?) this particular image of Grumpy Cat, which is reproduced millions of times across the internet. Does the NFT even convey the legal rights to the image? Can you send DMCA takedowns based on owning the NFT for an image? What even makes the NFT non-fungible?
In fact, if anyone wants it, I'll happily sell you the NFT https://robinmessage.com/nft/GrumpyCat for $100,000 and I'll promise:
- to probably never issue that NFT to anyone else;
- and that, in some ineffable way, it represents the original Grumpy Cat.