We have been writing about the NFT potential for the art world since 2017 and have always envisioned building an NFT marketplace. LTL has always been keen to support coders, designers, writers, photographers, filmmakers, and other creators with Intellectual Property (IP) and Copyright Management. The IP rights of digital content creators are difficult to protect. Imagine blockchain-powered solutions backed by experienced IP attorneys. We share a common desire to develop innovative services and products that will empower the creative world. I look forward to working with artists and creators, as we define the future of block-chain powered IP asset management solutions in the areas of copyrights, ...

An NFT is minted for each artwork in a collection. Each collection of art can include a variety of digital formats. NFTs are a piece of media (photo, video) whose value derives from an authentic electronic signature. And IPFS storage matters ;)

Your million-dollar NFT can break tomorrow if you’re not careful
What’s inside an NFT? And what are you actually buying? Turns out, it’s mostly metadata and links describing an artwork, rather than the artwork itself.

LTL will not charge artists to mint digital artwork and we will not take a commission on initial sales. We don't need to live off the backs of artists. We only charge all buyers a low fee of 1% which is redistributed to the Bankless DAO. We are here to empower artists at our core. LTL will take a 1% fee on every resale to support continued innovation. When you mint NFT art, you can choose to offer extra content that the buyer can only access after purchasing your NFT. Creators can add unlockable content by providing a link — for buyers to access after the sale, we will focus on offering high-quality prints & if possible qonos displays.

"who you sell your genesis token to, will have huge influence over your secondary market" artchick.eth

Any NFT created natively on our platform will be eligible for a reward share of $LTL tokens. The maximum any address can claim will be limited to 1% of each reward disbursement period. We would love to use Lock Protocol to set a vesting schedule that can be designed so that there is not a giant cliff waiting over user’s heads at a specific point. The tokens can be locked in a smart contract that releases the tokens on a weekly basis over a ten-year period.

Lock Protocol
Timelock, vest and distribute ETH and ERC20 tokens using smart contracts on Ethereum.

Users of the platform will be incentivised with $LTL tokens on the basis of transaction count. This reward will be shared amongst all the buyers and sellers.

LTL would like to incentivise and reward high-quality artwork. We suggest providing artists with an opportunity to earn $LTL by voting on Snapshot.

NFTs and Intellectual Property Law

Their value proposition is that they are digitally unique, they exist on a blockchain (like Ethereum) and while anyone can copy and download video clips or image files, an NFT has a record saying that it has only one owner. There’s nobody who’s serious about NFTs who really humors the idea that what you’re selling is the copyright or the master,” meaning the artists retain the copyright even as they sell some form of licensed content to buyers. While musicians or artists who create NFTs of their own artwork likely have an understanding of their rights, people can also mint NFTs of works they didn’t create. That's why we will only allow curated artists to mint NFT's on our platform. Ownership of an NFT does not, by default, grant you any rights to the intellectual property of the underlying asset. That's why we believe it's essential to let our artists manage these rights on our platform. So, unless the NFT includes a transfer of copyright in the underlying asset—which is not the case by default, then the author, not the NFT holder, owns the copyright.

All digital content is going on-chain
CoinFund’s NFT thesis and our investment in Rarible

The scenario we expect to gain traction on our platform, is for the copyright owner to grant the NFT owner a license to make certain uses of the work. There is nothing preventing a copyright owner from exercising that power through the mechanism of an NFT. Likewise, an NFT issuer may wish to restrict certain uses -- for example, prohibiting unsavory uses for brand protection.

During the first cycle of blockchain hype, multiple projects popped up promising to upend existing copyright-based business models, from registration of works to individual and collective licensing. Example: EY and Microsoft’s blockchain solution for content rights and royalties management for the media and entertainment industry. To the best of our knowledge, none of these was particularly successful. As the NFT/IP sphere is not yet developed to its fullest potential, there is still uncertainty and indisputable difficulty in attempting to enforce your IP rights against infringers. This is def. a problem worth solving.

Blockchain: Transforming the registration of IP rights and strengthening the protection of unregistered IP rights
Blockchain platforms create a transparent and (arguably) immutable chain of information, but what is its potential to enhance the registration of trademarks and designs?
Creative Commons, commercial use, and NFTs
Welcome to this week’s edition of “Weird NFT questions nobody had thought about before last month”. In this week’s edition, we have an interesting development in the interfa…
Copyfraud and copyright infringement in NFTs
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 Here we go again. I was seriously planning not to blog again about non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and instead concentrate on writing a full academic paper about the subject, b…
Can copyright teach us anything about NFTs?
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 If you have been reading any technology and art news in the last week, you may have come across the newest hype in the world of distributed ledgers and cryptocurrencies, an…
The One Redeeming Quality of NFTs Might Not Even Exist
NFTs are the latest and greatest example of what we might call “virtual Veblen goods.”
Non-Fungible Tokens, Ownership of Digital Objects, and Copyright
Nyancat by Quinn Dombrowski, CC BY-SA 2.0 News about non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) selling for eye-popping sums has been hard to miss. Nyan Cat, an iconic GIF of a cat with a Pop-Tart for a torso fl…

“Only limited personal non-commercial use and resale rights in the NFT are granted and you have no right to license, commercially exploit, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, or publicly display the NFT or the music or the artwork therein.  All copyright and other rights are reserved and not granted.”

These terms of use are clearly restrictive for NFT purchasers and expressly distinguish the NFT and the underlying work. (Although the terms do not expressly mention it, it is noted that the purchase of the autographed tangible copy that the successful acquirer received remains subject to exhaustion.)

"In a way, NFTs represent a meta-ownership concept, which relies on code to allow for ownership-like digital distribution, exhaustion, remunerated resale, and enforcement within the context of a blockchain-based system. In doing so, NFTs offer an appealing new remuneration model for creators. However, for the most part, the affordances of NFTs are not accompanied by matching legal effects as far as copyright law is concerned. This creates significant challenges for creators, other rights holders, and users if their expectation is that an NFT transaction on a blockchain will mirror an off-chain transaction for an equivalent work. Together with issues related to the potential for misattribution (and associated authenticity issues), as well as infringement of exclusive and moral rights, it is questionable whether the benefits of NFTs can outweigh their potential drawbacks."

Art is the frontend, IP is the backend

NFTs are pictures of cats. NFTs are collectibles. NFTs are digital content. NFTs are property rights to digital content. NFTs are liquid IP. NFTs are DeFi. NFTs contain DeFi. And DeFi is the intergalactic finance of NFTs ... full circle shit.

The opportunities to disrupt the media landscape are endless ... NFTs introduce a new medium and a format for copyright. As a medium, copyright is being ignored right now. As a format, NFTs are an unrivaled solution to enforcing copyright.

Unlike NFTs, real-world art is not zero cost. It takes effort and time to create a piece. This is effectively Proof of Work. A famous artist like Picasso can only create thousands of pieces of art in his lifetime. This limitation creates scarcity, which helps keep the value high. NFTs, on the other hand, create artificial scarcity. Because of the near-zero cost to create another NFT, the market will eventually be flooded with NFTs from artists trying to cash in on this craze. Supply will overwhelm demand and the prices will eventually crash ... but creators will keep creating, and fans will remain keen to connect with the artists.

A big problem with producing and selling digital art is how easily it can be duplicated and pirated. Once something is copied and replicated for free, the value drops and the prospect of a market disappears. For things to be of value they need to have scarcity. Blockchain helps solve this for digital artists by introducing the idea of "digital scarcity":  issuing a limited number of copies and tying them back to unique blocks proving ownership.