The entertainment landscape has been progressively moving towards capitalizing on Web3 through popular franchises. The start of this shift however has not been without its challenges.
The legal perspective around ownership is seeing ongoing litigation between Quentin Tarantino and Miramax, Nike NKE -0.5% and StockX, and Hermes/Mason Rothschild.
NFT issuers and holders, therefore, need to understand the complexities involved in what is, and isn’t, allowed once an NFT changes hands. For example, once purchased the underlying rights of an NFT aren’t generally given by the issuer. Instead, specific rights are given to display and exhibit the work.
Under federal law, a full copyright holder is granted certain rights under ownership. Including the ability to reproduce and distribute the work, as well as introduce derivative projects. Generally, NFT holders can’t do this and subsequently fully commercialize their NFTs, which therefore brings the question of ownership to the forefront.
With the sector in its infancy, in regards to its understanding and application of Web3, clearly, several issues still need to be ironed out.
What is clear however is the mass potential of increased revenue. Marvel, for example, has been selling physical merchandise for decades and is seen as a tangible revenue stream for the company. Web3 has now made it possible for the company to sell items such as digital figures, key scenes and even potential original movie scripts, all tracked by the blockchain to guarantee originality. Unlike memorabilia of a physical nature, however, Marvel could make royalties from each subsequent sale of their product, once again, because of blockchain.
Continue reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2022/04/20/entertainment-industry-pushes-to-shift-intellectual-property-to-web3/?sh=1f4f5fd942ef
The legal perspective around ownership is seeing ongoing litigation between Quentin Tarantino and Miramax, Nike NKE -0.5% and StockX, and Hermes/Mason Rothschild.
NFT issuers and holders, therefore, need to understand the complexities involved in what is, and isn’t, allowed once an NFT changes hands. For example, once purchased the underlying rights of an NFT aren’t generally given by the issuer. Instead, specific rights are given to display and exhibit the work.
Under federal law, a full copyright holder is granted certain rights under ownership. Including the ability to reproduce and distribute the work, as well as introduce derivative projects. Generally, NFT holders can’t do this and subsequently fully commercialize their NFTs, which therefore brings the question of ownership to the forefront.
With the sector in its infancy, in regards to its understanding and application of Web3, clearly, several issues still need to be ironed out.
What is clear however is the mass potential of increased revenue. Marvel, for example, has been selling physical merchandise for decades and is seen as a tangible revenue stream for the company. Web3 has now made it possible for the company to sell items such as digital figures, key scenes and even potential original movie scripts, all tracked by the blockchain to guarantee originality. Unlike memorabilia of a physical nature, however, Marvel could make royalties from each subsequent sale of their product, once again, because of blockchain.
Continue reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2022/04/20/entertainment-industry-pushes-to-shift-intellectual-property-to-web3/?sh=1f4f5fd942ef
