Many friends who want to create NFTs often have the first question about copyright issues. Let's talk about NFTs and copyright here.
The evolution of copyright is quite complex. The earliest term used for copyright was "copyright," which mainly referred to the right to reproduce. This term emerged because with the maturity of printing technology, mass reproduction of works became possible, and intellectual works could be commercialized. The initial purpose was actually to protect publishers.
But when a work is published and has the right to reproduce, what about when it is adapted into a radio drama and has the right to broadcast? What about when it is made into a movie? Each new medium creates a new right, like a new incarnation. So what is the essence behind these incarnations? Gradually, the concept of "copyright" evolved, which is 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, there is a new right in copyright called the right to network dissemination. Blockchain brings the right to issue NFTs, which is a new incarnation of copyright. If 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: NFT itself should represent copyright. It is not an incarnation of copyright; it is the essence. NFT simulates uniqueness in the digital world and simulates "property rights." It aims to redefine copyright in a digital way and reduce the transaction costs of copyright, allowing authors to truly control their rights.
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 agree with this view, resulting in 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 restricting reproduction. Instead, it should explore other methods.
For example, if you want to use Eason Chan's song "The Road Always," you need to pay a fee. Where do you find the copyright holder? Moreover, a song may involve multiple rights holders for 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 need to pay. The final result of the game is that everyone entrusts their copyright to collective management organizations like CASH Music or transfers it to large companies like Universal without authorization, as Wu Xiangfei mentioned on Weibo that he only earned 271 yuan from his self-written song "The Road Always" in a year and was secretly represented by Universal without authorization.
So what help do blockchain and NFT provide in this matter?
- They 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 that also provides a public record of ownership transfer.
- They can define "rights," transaction models, and distribution methods through programming.
- They can design better economic models.
All of these can reduce transaction costs and allow creators to truly hold their copyrights.
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 an editor writes an article and needs an image, the editor will be prompted by the protocol associated with the image NFT, such as the need to share 5% of the advertising revenue with the image NFT holder. The embedded advertising platform in the article 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 mostly automated through smart contracts and does not require manual negotiation.
What about the uncontrollable aspects of smart contracts? That still falls within the realm of law. However, law and smart contracts will collide and merge in the realm of 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 internationalized and the best testing ground for the combination of law and smart contracts.
Which viewpoint do you support regarding NFTs and copyright?