Many friends who want to create NFTs often have the first question about copyright. Let's talk about NFT and copyright here.
The evolution of copyright is quite complex. The term "copyright" originally referred to the right to copy, mainly because after the maturity of printing, it became possible to mass-produce works, and intellectual works could be commercialized. The initial purpose was actually to protect publishers.
But what is the relationship between a work having the right to copy and being adapted into a radio drama, or being made into a movie? Each new medium creates a new right, like a new incarnation. So what is the original form behind these incarnations? This gradually evolved into the concept of copyright, a general term for the rights surrounding intellectual works. In the modern sense, "copyright" and "author's rights" are equivalent. They are rights that are automatically obtained and do not depend on registration. The core purpose is to protect the rights of creators.
So what does the NFT we trade actually represent? Is it a new incarnation of copyright? Or does it represent the essence of copyright?
The incarnation theory: In the internet age, the right to network dissemination has been added to copyright, and blockchain has brought the right to issue NFTs. It is a new incarnation of copyright. If the blockchain is a game platform, then NFTs are the props on this game platform. These props are defined, transferred, and protected through smart contracts, and they do not have any relationship with other rights defined by law.
The essence theory: NFTs themselves should represent copyright. They are not incarnations of copyright, they are the essence. NFTs simulate uniqueness in the digital world and simulate "property rights". The goal is to redefine copyright through digital means, reduce the transaction costs of copyright, and allow authors to truly control their copyright.
Currently, most NFT platforms actually hold the incarnation theory because the legal system of copyright is quite complex, and platform operators do not want to get involved in copyright disputes too early. However, NFT holders often do not think so, and as a result, there are situations where NFT holders want to exhibit their digital collections offline but find that they do not have the right to do so, leading to disputes with the original authors.
On the other hand, the essence theory believes that the current definition of copyright itself is not a big problem. The key issue is that the transaction costs are too high and do not meet the requirements of the digital age. The digital age should not maintain copyright by limiting reproduction, but should explore other methods.
For example, if you want to use Eason Chan's song "The Road Always" and pay the fee, where do you find the copyright holder? Moreover, a song may involve multiple rights holders such as lyrics, composition, and performance, and the fees may vary in different scenarios. In the end, the cost of negotiation may exceed the licensing fee you have to pay. The final result of the game is that everyone entrusts their copyright to organizations like the Music Copyright Society of China or transfers it to large companies like Universal without authorization, as mentioned by Wu Xiangfei on Weibo. He said that he wrote the song "The Road Always" and only earned 271 yuan in a year, and it was privately represented by Universal without authorization.
So what help can blockchain and NFT provide in this matter?
- Provide proof of time and proof of ownership. Proof of time is the best way to prove copyright, and blockchain is naturally a time-proof machine, providing a public record of ownership transfer.
- "Rights," transaction models, and distribution methods can be defined through programming.
- Design better economic models.
All of these can reduce transaction costs and allow creators to truly own their copyright.
Imagine a future scenario where a photographer shares their photos on a shared network, and each photo automatically creates an NFT and binds it to a protocol. When I write an article and need an image, the system will automatically prompt me based on the protocol bound to the image NFT, such as the need to share 5% of the advertising revenue with the image NFT holder. The embedded advertising platform will automatically recognize the image protocol and allocate advertising revenue. If the image NFT is transferred, the smart contract will automatically distribute the revenue to the new holder. All of this is done automatically based on smart contracts without the need for manual negotiation.
What about the uncontrollable aspects of smart contracts? That still belongs to the realm of law. However, law and smart contracts will collide and merge on NFTs. NFTs have both digital and identity characteristics, making them a bridge. Copyright is a right protected by multiple international conventions, making it the most international and best experimental field for the combination of law and smart contracts.
Which viewpoint do you support regarding NFTs and copyright?
This article is reposted from my Weibo: