Skip to content



NFTs are…

“The ownership of an NFT as defined by the blockchain has no inherent legal meaning, and does not necessarily grant copyright, intellectual property rights, or other legal rights over its associated digital file,” see here.

NFTs: the ultimate speculation?

"[As an artist, you] might be interested in NFTs because it gives you a way to sell work that there otherwise might not be much of a market for"

“some NFT marketplaces have a feature where you can make sure you get paid a percentage every time your NFT is sold or changes hands”

“One of the obvious benefits of buying art is it lets you financially support artists you like, and that’s true with NFTs”

"Who paid $20,000 for a video clip of Logan Paul?! A fool and their money are soon parted, I guess?"

Static vs. Dynamic

"But wait, doesn’t the fact that they’re on the blockchain make them permanent? Okay, so this is a whole thing. Technically, yes: when you say NFT you’re referring to an entry on the blockchain, However, the actual media, like the picture, GIF, or flagrant flaunting of copyright law is very rarely actually stored on the blockchain — it’d be too expensive to do that" … (see link above).

  • Legal proceedings are the ultimate manifestations of pure IP with material value.

  • An NFT encapsulating the “legal process” (with immutable timely entries of references to filed documents) is therefore a rule-based and mechanically enforceable “proxy” to the material value of that IP.

(Dynamic) NFTs of lawsuits

  • “Blockchain”-ed lawsuits (as dynamic NFTs) are the ultimate open, consistent, verifiable, and falsifiable means to invest in, and to support, the endless struggle for “social justice.”