“You own the image“ functionally doesn’t mean anything in the context of NFT’s because the image component in an NFT is not actually exchanging hands so there’s nothing to truly enforce here. It doesn’t grant exclusive rights and all that comes with it, it just gives them ownership rights - an artist can’t say the owner can’t use it for their own purposes. People can screenshot it, make memes of that, etc. and you have no legal recourse because you do not have exclusive rights to the actual work. They did nothing that violates your ownership. The NFT is you have a receipt that nobody can dispute that says “I own this receipt associated with this image and can use it as such.”
When I shoot video and give people a screener, I watermark it and have legal rights to the image/video content itself. They cannot duplicate it or use it in any fashion without risking legal action by me against them. NFT’s do not have that same protection. I can screenshot a bored ape image that someone “owns,” barely augment it, and mint a new NFT with no repercussions from the person who bought the original NFT. The original artist could come after me potentially because they have the actual exclusive rights to the creation, which again does not transfer with an NFT purchase.
In addition, you don’t even own the means to protect the receipt. If the blockchain goes down, your receipt is meaningless and you don’t even have exclusive rights to the image to sell or license out.
To give one more example: if I buy a video game, I have certain ownership rights associated with that disk. This is assuming physical copies of course. I can do whatever I want with that physical copy within the bounds of ownership of a distributed IP. I can snap it in half, I can back it up to a drive, etc. What I cannot do is make copies and distribute it because I have no rights to the IP, it has not been transferred to me with the purchase. The developer/publisher still has exclusivity, they control the IP. And if somebody else makes copies of my gave to be distributed, I have no legal recourse. This is really the key factor here. That law they’re breaking is not about my ownership, it’s about the game developer and publisher’s rights to the IP. They are the only ones who have legal recourse. NFTs, it’s the same way. The artist has all of the legal protections that come with IP ownership. Not the person who bought an NFT of the artwork.
TL;DR: NFT’s are buying receipts. They’re roughly as useful as “a certificate of authenticity“ they comes bundled with collectors items that were sold on infomercials in the 90s and 2000s. Except you don’t even get to store the certificate yourself, you’re dependent on somebody else
Seriously. Hold them all accountable. Don't be pro-google/anti-apple because you happened to give some money to one of them. Scrutinize both at all times.
Accusing someone of being and/or defending a child predator (or stance) is a serious, potentially life ruining action. Without context I can’t assume it was warranted or that you were unfairly banned given our current social discourse where people flippantly call people “pedos.”
Point is we only have your side and no clue what was actually said. Just something to consider.
A gun is always loaded and the chamber could absolutely have a round in it. That is how literally every on-set gun death has happened. Round in the chamber that wasn’t supposed to be there.
Life360 is the subject and the surveyor for this article so take it with a grain of salt. They want this to be normal. However, it does not change the fact that clearly Gen Z is more open to this than previous generations at least to some degree.
As a parent, I do plan on using the services, but definitely not daily and I want my kids to have a say in the matter. What’s important is they feel safe.