nft Archives - SmartFrame

NFTs: What went wrong?

Liam Machin — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:28:00 +0000

NFTs promised a future of digital ownership, but the hype faded and the market collapsed. But could these still have utility in the future?

Non-fungible tokens. Remember those?

The fun little JPEGs that exploded onto the scene, promising something truly revolutionary: true digital ownership.

The reality, though? Rampant speculation, reckless spending, and rug pulls aplenty.

The narrative went that, through blockchain, you could prove authenticity and trade digital assets just like physical art.

But it fell far short of those lofty expectations.

Trading platform OpenSea reportedly went from over $6 billion in monthly sales volume to dropping by as much as 90% in just a few months.

So, what exactly went wrong?

What exactly is an NFT?

An NFT, or non-fungible token, is essentially a digital certificate stored on a blockchain that points to a specific asset – often a piece of art, a song, a video clip, or even a tweet.

Think of it less as the thing itself and more as a digital receipt that proves you own a unique version of that thing.

What makes NFTs different from cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is their uniqueness. One Bitcoin is always equal to another Bitcoin, but NFTs are one of a kind – or part of a limited series. That uniqueness – its “non-fungibility” – is the whole point; it’s what gives the token its supposed value.

In theory, it works. But in practice? You don’t actually own the art. You own a claim to it in a digital world. As a Hacker News user put it bluntly:

An NFT is just the “bragging rights” part of the original painting, and the JPG that anyone can access is the “thing that looks like a painting”

The token doesn’t usually contain the actual image or file. Instead, it links to it. The artwork or asset typically lives “off-chain,” stored somewhere else online.

The blockchain simply holds proof of ownership and a pointer to where the file is located. That’s part of what makes the concept confusing.

You’re not really buying the digital object itself, but a kind of verified record saying, “Yes, this one is yours.”

If you haven’t explored blockchain or digital wallets before, it can all feel somewhat abstract.

There’s a lot of jargon, multiple layers of technology, and plenty of noise. But, at its core, the concept is simple: it’s about using blockchain to confirm digital ownership in a way that can’t easily be faked, copied, or disputed.

However, the disconnect between on-chain ownership and genuine legal rights quickly tarnished public trust.

Why has the NFT hype faded away?

NFTs weren’t driven by genuine use – they were fueled by frenzy. In 2020, NFT sales were roughly $82 million. By 2021, that figure had exploded to $17.7 billion.

But as prices skyrocketed, so did fraud: wash trading, rug pulls, and phishing scams ran rampant.

The market began to look less like a place of innovation and more like a casino – one rigged with insider manipulation and empty promises.

NFT ownership exists in a legal gray zone. Holding an NFT doesn’t mean you own the copyright (unless explicitly stated).

High-profile disputes, including those involving Damien Hirst and Quentin Tarantino, exposed cracks in the system and forced regulators to take notice.

Then came the environmental backlash. Early NFT platforms ran on energy-intensive blockchains, and minting just one token could leave a carbon footprint equivalent to a short-haul flight across Europe.

For many, that ethical cost outweighed any potential benefit once it became widely understood.

Artists and collectors who had initially celebrated NFTs as a progressive step forward suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of sustainability conversations.

The irony was hard to ignore: a technology hailed as the future was fueling one of humanity’s greatest problems.

As media coverage intensified, headlines painted NFTs as not just speculative but irresponsible. And while Ethereum, for example, has since transitioned to a more efficient proof-of-stake model, the damage to public perception had already been done.

Where NFTs might actually work

For all the noise around NFTs, they did tap into a very real human instinct: the desire to own digital things in a meaningful way.

But if we strip away the blockchain hype and focus on what ownership actually means – security, rights, provenance, and control – there are simpler and more functional ways to achieve that.

In fact, the real utility of NFTs might not lie in digital art at all.

Here are a few areas where the underlying technology could prove more useful:

Gaming

NFTs can represent in-game items like skins or characters that are owned by the player rather than locked to a single platform.

In theory, these assets could be traded between games or resold by players themselves – giving gamers more control over their digital property.

Games like NBA 2K have already begun integrating branded digital goods from more than 75 partners. In the future, these digital items could evolve into NFTs that offer real-world value.

Ticketing

NFTs could serve as unique, tamper-proof digital tickets that verify entry and track resale conditions.

Artists and venues could set resale royalties or limit markups, gaining more control over pricing and access.

Loyalty and membership programs

Brands and creators could use NFTs to reward loyal followers with exclusive access, early product drops, private content, or special event invites.

Since NFTs are verifiable and trackable, the experience becomes personal and portable.

Credentials and certification

NFTs could store proof of achievements, such as university degrees, professional training, or identity verification, in a way that’s instantly verifiable and secure (and not reliant on third-party databases).

Unlike PDFs or paper certificates, these credentials could be publicly validated, reducing fraud and making them more portable across borders and between institutions.

What is the future for NFTs?

If NFTs are to survive, owning one has to actually mean something.

That means providing their owners with real rights, building on sustainable platforms, and delivering genuine value – not just cool-looking pictures.

It’s time to move past the hype and promises. Instead of chasing fast money and attention, the focus should be on making NFTs truly valuable in everyday life.

This could mean tickets, gaming items, digital art with enforceable rights, or verified identity.

These changes won’t happen overnight. Technology takes time.

Adoption may be slower and quieter than the 2021 boom, but the core idea of NFTs – true digital ownership – still holds promise.

But for that promise to be fulfilled, the people building the next phase need to learn from the mistakes of the first wave.

The post NFTs: What went wrong? appeared first on SmartFrame.

Web3: Everything You Need To Know About Web 3.0

SmartFrame — Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:12:09 +0000

What is Web3? How might it change online spaces? And what obstacles stand in its way? Here’s what you need to know about Web 3.0.

The term Web3 has been around for longer than some realize.

First coined in 2014 by Ethereum co-founder Gavin Wood, Web3 is hailed as the next stage of the world wide web. But, as with any new technology, it has as many detractors as it does advocates.

Before we delve into the details of Web3, let’s examine how the web has evolved since its inception.

Spearheaded by internet pioneer Tim Berners Lee, Web 1.0 and 2.0 can be understood as developmental stages of the web.

he first generation, from the early 90s to the mid-2000s, was a one-way medium where internet users primarily accessed and read websites without a significant level of interaction. Web 1.0 can be described as a static information provider, with few content creators and a majority of content consumers.

Web 2.0, also called the participative social web, is a more dynamic, interactive, and collaborative digital space, characterized by user-generated content, usability, and interoperability. Rather than a read-only experience, there is now a two-way dialogue where users are encouraged to comment and engage with websites.

his ‘social’ web has seen the emergence of myriad online tools and platforms that facilitate communication between users and content creation, such as blogging, social media, and podcasting. Other technologies – most notably smartphones – have fuelled the rapid growth of Web 2.0.

What is Web3?

he answer is as varied as any web search result, and the definition of Web3 depends on the writer.

Some say Web3 is interchangeable with the terms ‘semantic web‘ or Web 3.0, while others stridently disagree.

Web 3.0 is considered to be an extension of Berners Lee’s vision, but it is Wood’s conceptualization that most people think of when they refer to Web3 today.

Along with cryptocurrency and NFTs, Web3 refers to a digital space in which the fundamentals of data creation, access, and storage have shifted.

If interactivity was the main distinction between the first and second generations of the web, then decentralization is the big differentiator between the second and third generations.

What is a decentralized web?

here are three different types of network systems: centralized, distributed, and decentralized.

A network system consists of two or more connected computer systems that communicate and share data, using network nodes as connection points to create, send, receive, and store data within that same network. A node can be a computer device, for example, or a router or switch.

In a centralized system, individual nodes access data through one central server that owns all the resources. In a distributed system, the processing power and resources are evenly spread across multiple, connected data centers.

Most organizations or businesses will have their own central server or system. Cloud computing is an example of a distributed system.

Web3 is to run on decentralized systems, more specifically, blockchain, a type of distributed database where there is no single, central server, and where each node acts as an individual and independent processing point.

What is a blockchain?

A blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger where all data, transactions, and actions – such as orders, payments, accounts, production, and more – are recorded.

Each node has the power to update a blockchain and, in theory, promises an immediate, shared, and transparent history of all online activity.

Each node also has its own copy of this history, which ensures transparency and accountability.

According to McKinsey, a blockchain has hree key attributes:

It must be cryptographically secure: a public key (a cryptographic key that users can share with others, usually an address in the database) enables someone to receive a transaction. This is paired with a specific private key, which is used as proof of ID, to unlock the transaction. The key must correspond to, and be authenticated by, the used network.
It must be fully digital and online.
As a peer-to-peer network, blockchain must be shared across either a public network, such as bitcoin blockchain – the best-known cryptocurrency, for which blockchain technology as we know it was created – or a private network, more often used in banking and fintech. Some blockchains, such as consortium or private blockchains, combine different aspects of both.

Smart contracts are programs written in code on a blockchain. Once predetermined conditions are met – stipulations that have to be decided by participants – these contracts execute activities, workflows, and actions – in short, any process that can be automated.

Examples in everyday life

A number of blockchain-based technologies and services are already in use:

Digital currencies

Commonly referred to as cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ethereum. Different currencies may work with different algorithms and at differing speeds. These transactions do not need a central authority (such as a bank) to facilitate them.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs)

NFTs can represent digital or real-world items such as artwork, certifications, real estate, or memberships, and are often used to sell and trade digital art. They are stored in a blockchain and a cryptographic hash makes the NFT unique. ‘Non-fungible’ simply means non-interchangeable or irreplaceable.

Decentralized applications

Decentralized applications, or dApps, allow users to exchange, borrow, lend, play to earn, and more. Right now, most dApps are geared towards decentralized finance (DeFi) and serve as financial platforms. dApp value is distributed to its participants rather than a CEO.

Decentralized autonomous organizations

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) refer to community-led entities, networks, or business structures. They can be compared to a cooperative where users can invest or exchange cryptocurrencies, carry out legal services, or even find like-minded individuals to collaborate with.

DAOs run on crypto tokens rather than data. Tokens can be used as currency to buy accessories in a game, for example, or even ad inventory, and can even be seen as the equivalent of a share. By investing, contributing, providing content, or adding to the code, users receive tokens that grant them voting rights in relation to the direction and management of a project.

Automation and predetermined code (or rules) govern the organization rather than an executive board, and token holders decide on key activities such as capital and asset management. Those with more tokens have greater voting power.

Key features of Web 3.0

Decentralized, trustless, and permissionless

Information is not stored on unique web addresses attached to a fixed location or server. Instead, it is found based on its content, and stored in multiple locations simultaneously.

Open-source software facilitates access and participation, and users have full control over their data and their actions. There is no need for permission from, or management by, a trusted intermediary or governing body, effectively making the system trustless.

Blockchain-based and cryptocurrency-enabled

hrough blockchain technology, data and connections will be distributed across computing resources, including mobile phones, desktops, appliances, vehicles, and sensors.

A permanent and unchangeable record of all transactions and activity ensures authenticity and transparency, preventing attempts at counterfeiting or double-spending. Blockchain provides the technological building block for a fully digital cryptocurrency system, with no single point of failure that might cause it to collapse.

Automated, autonomous, and artificially intelligent

Artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, natural language processing, and deep learning will power relevant results faster, without interference from external forces and unencumbered by advertising. Automated tasks and AI-enhanced processing power improve accuracy and efficiency.

The potential of Web3

For proponents of Web3, decentralization and distribution eliminate an over-dependence on large, powerful intermediaries such as Google, Meta and Amazon, or even central government.

Web3 technology breaks down monopolies and acts as an equalizer. This puts users in complete control of their personal data and assets, limiting practices of non-consensual data extraction that have come to define the internet today.

Web3 is a system that inherently recognizes individual ownership, with technologies and processes such as NFTs and tokenization baked into its foundation. This improves the conditions of content creators who, on the one hand, have more power to determine the value of their work without external intervention, and, on the other, have access to an extended marketplace, new tools, and potential collaborators.

hrough the continuous development and integration of new AI technologies, Web3 delivers accelerated accuracy and accessibility to suit individual needs. Within an interconnected ecosystem, access to data and interaction between users is seamless, dissolving traditional barriers such as income, gender, sexual orientation, geographical location, or socioeconomic status.

Finally, the joint elements of decentralization, distribution, and cryptography provide more security against common data breaches. Since everything is recorded on separate independent nodes, data cannot be copied, stolen, or interfered with without detection.

Is Web3 all it promises to be?

he qualities that make Web3 appealing to some also make it inherently risky and dangerous to others.

here are certainly drawbacks to a ‘central authority’ system. Currently, a small number of powerful players largely determine the rules governing personal data, social media, e-commerce, and search engines.

his asymmetrical distribution of control, capital, and information in favor of a handful of big tech companies puts end-users, businesses, and even governments at a disadvantage. Complete deregulation, however, opens up the web to cybercrime, hate speech, and misinformation at a scale that might be even harder to police.

here are many unresolved questions concerning complete anonymity. On one hand, to what extent is it truly possible? On the others, what would occur if it was?

here is plenty of personally identifiable information traveling around online, concerning healthcare, financial and transactional data to biometric information and even that from IoT devices. Could Web3 technologies heighten and intensify current levels of surveillance instead of curbing them – especially with incorporated AI and machine learning on hand to lift the thinly veiled anonymity of everyday users?

If the data is public, there is a real danger that only those with the right resources will be able to control it. This is the reality that threatens to undermine the utopian idea of Web3; becoming crypto-literate, and having the tools and capacity to invest or develop code, requires a certain level of digital access. How can this new iteration of the web guarantee inclusion over deepening digital and financial marginalization?

Resources are already polarized, with only 0.01% of all Bitcoin holders (around 10,000 investors) owning 27% of all the 18.9 million coins in circulation, approximately $456 billion (at the time of writing). As former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey pointed out, rather than the public, it would be the venture capitalists, their funds, and their partners pouring billions into Web3, who would end up with the most power in this virtual space – a virtual, decentralized space where matters of privacy and compliance are not a given. It remains unclear how decentralized IDs might fit into current and evolving GDPR regulations and geographical data boundaries.

It is also to be expected that as Web3 technologies develop, so too will new methods of cybercrime. Hackers might exploit the interoperability and interconnectedness of these services, for example, installing crypto-mining software onto the devices of unwitting and less technologically savvy users, or setting up venture-based money laundering or bogus cryptocurrency investment schemes. If complete anonymity is possible, it might threaten social norms around accountability, responsibility, liability, protection, and legal recourse.

On top of that, Web3, blockchain, and cryptocurrencies are still decidedly unstable. Cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile, with the collapse of FTX only the most recent in a long line of incidents. One website that has been tallying Web3 disasters and the amount of money lost to grifts and scams since 2021 currently reports total losses at nearly $12 billion. Nearly 40% of cryptocurrencies set up in 2021 had failed by the end of 2022, and the currencies that persist have accrued different values the same way government-issued fiat money does. Inequality, then, can be as much of an issue in Web3 as in our current systems.

Web3 promises decentralization, but stability demands a certain amount of centralization and standardization. This would require all existing data and infrastructure to be migrated to a blockchain database and transferred to decentralized hosting, which in itself would necessitate more computing power to ensure content exists in multiple locations. And this process, if it does take hold, will take a long time.

Web3: Hype or reality?

A Google trends search shows global interest is decreasing in blockchain and NFTs. Enthusiasm for Web3 and its potential, however, may point to dissatisfaction with the current model, design, and policies that rule the web – especially as we see tech giants coming under more scrutiny amidst multiple anti-privacy and antitrust allegations.

However, the aspirations of Web3 as a great equalizer harks back to the utopianism of the 1990s. While Web3 might tout the disintegration of barriers, blockchain networks, crypto wallets, and private keys still need to be learned, understood, and accessed.

Web3 and the underlying blockchain technology won’t necessarily be the answer that will return data, power, and privacy back to end-users. In fact, there is a real danger it may accelerate the current tracking and surveillance practices, further entrench disenfranchisement, and put vast amounts of data at risk.

his is not to say that existing Web3 concepts such as cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and dApps will completely vanish. A world of digital currency alone is quite conceivable – and digital items are already valued in different parts of society.

It’s more likely some elements will persist and evolve while others fall away. The Treasury and the Bank of England, for example, have announced that a state-backed digital pound looks likely.

Of course, no one can predict the direction in which the web will develop, and we may see a variety of structures and databases coexisting and even overlapping. Although doubtlessly, any shape it takes will be subject to constant change.

The post Web3: Everything You Need To Know About Web 3.0 appeared first on SmartFrame.

What is copyfraud? And what do NFTs have to do with it?

Matt Golowczynski — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 12:24:26 +0000

Copyfraud has received renewed attention in the past few months with the surge in popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). We explain what copyfraud is and how it relates to NFTs.

What is copyfraud?

Copyfraud describes the act of falsely claiming copyright over a work that’s in the public domain.

Any work that is usually subject to copyright can be the target of copyfraud, such as an image, a painting, a book or a piece of music.

Why is copyfraud a problem?

The latter part of the word underlines the incentive here: anyone claiming copyright over a work to which they do not legitimately hold it may be doing so to seek licensing fees or other payments from the use of these works.

Copyfraud cases have typically concerned organizations such as image libraries and heritage and cultural institutions, rather than individuals. These are, after all, more likely to want to display and publish works already in the public domain than an individual might. Of course, it’s also more believable that such an institution may actually hold the copyright to a piece of work in the public domain than an individual claiming the same thing.

This isn’t to say that an individual isn’t as capable of engaging in this kind of behavior, just that they are more likely to claim copyright over an image or another work whose copyright belongs to someone else, rather than to one in the public domain.

Do existing copyright laws help to prevent or encourage copyfraud?

Jason Mazonne, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois who coined the term, states in his 2006 paper on the subject that “copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials … While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare.” He goes on to state that copyfraud “stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech.”

Mazonne provides various examples of everyday media that contains some form of work purportedly protected by copyright, even if this work is actually in the public domain. Greeting cards bearing Monet’s Water Lilies, for example, or books containing Shakespeare’s plays. These will typically be published with a copyright notice that prohibits the reproduction of any part of the published work. But if part of that work contains something that’s already in the public domain, how can the publisher claim that no part of the work may be reproduced?

The fact that copyright – or more specifically, what copyright law does and doesn’t allow – is not that well understood makes it easy to exploit these misunderstandings.

While many photographers appreciate that they will have certain rights over an image they take, ones that prevent others from exploiting that work for commercial gain, they will have less knowledge around the appropriate use of orphan works, works in the public domain and works to which more than one copyright holder exists.

Furthermore, copyright law details not only what protections the copyright holder retains, but also what’s permissible by others without the copyright owner’s knowledge or consent.

As Mazonne explains: “Copyfraud is exacerbated when owners of valid copyrights interfere with lawful de minimis copying and fair use and thereby impose restrictions beyond what the law allows. These actions deter even limited reproduction of falsely marked public domain works, reproduction that would be lawful even if the works were in fact under copyright.”

Another factor behind the prevalence of copyfraud concerns the likelihood of a claim of infringement being challenged. An individual accused of copyright infringement by a large organization may not have the necessary funds and resources to defend themselves in the event of any dispute, which makes it likely that they will capitulate to the demands of the organization.

The fact that copyright law varies between countries, and does not last indefinitely, brings further complications.

Are these cases becoming more complex?

There have been a number of well-publicized cases concerning disputed copyright claims in recent years, and some of these have been particularly complex.

In some of these cases, these complexities can be traced back to the way in which the work was initially published by the creator. Many artists will publish their work on a social media platform or another online portal, and while these platforms will have their own terms around what content may be published, and the license that’s granted to them when this happens, a clash between these and copyright law can create problems – particularly if the person uploading the content is not actually its true copyright holder.

Of course, the ease with which such works can be stolen from these platforms and republished elsewhere only makes the problem worse. Entering images into competitions and not reading the small print around what rights and licenses are assigned to the organizers has also stung many photographers and content owners.

Can a creative work only partly be protected copyright?

Just as it’s entirely possible for an individual to know they do not hold copyright over a piece of work but claim to – and exploit this for financial gain – there are many grey areas around this that can further complicate legal challenges.

It’s not common, but it’s possible for a company or an individual to only own the copyright to part of a published work, one that is generally considered to be a single piece.

One recent example of this – which highlights just how convoluted these kinds of cases can be – concerned the song Happy Birthday to You.

In 1935, musical publisher Summy Co. registered copyright over a number of piano arrangements of the song, and charged licensing fees for those wishing to use it. In 1988, publisher Warner Chappell Music purchased the company and continued to claim licensing fees for the use of the song, which were estimated to reach around $2m per year.

In 2013, a documentary maker filed a legal suit against Warner Chappell, claiming that the copyright the company held only pertained to a piano arrangement of the melody, rather than the song and lyrics in its entirety, and argued that the song was in fact in the public domain.

The presence of the song and lyrics in songbooks published in 1922 and 1927 also preceded the 1935 copyright that was registered by Summy Co. This meant that even if it was originally protected by copyright, this would have since expired.

In the end, a judge ruled that Warner Chappell’s copyright did indeed only cover specific piano arrangements to the melody. The company disagreed, but ended up paying back $14m in licensing fees that it had collected over the years. The song was declared to be in the public domain in the US in 2016, and in the European Union at the start of 2017.

What do NFTs have to do with this?

The recent rise in popularity of non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, has brought more focus on issues surrounding ownership, copyright and potential infringements. But before we examine why, it’s best to look at what an NFT actually is.

Non-fungible tokens detail the ownership of a digital asset of some kind, such as an image, a video, a collectible sports card or a tool used in a video game. “Non-fungible” simply means that the token cannot be replicated – and, therefore, interchanged with another token – because of something unique about it, much in the way that a piece of original art cannot be readily substituted for another.

The token itself resides on a blockchain, which is a public ledger, and this shows that a transaction took place and that there is an owner of this digital asset. In the case of an image, this could be a reproduction of an original image that is in some way unique. Exactly how it’s unique is another matter, although the copyright owner will have verified this in some way. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, for example, recently sold an NFT of his first tweet for $2.9m, and this contained the metadata of the tweet and a certificate signed by him.

It’s important to note that the token is not the original artwork, nor the copyright over the artwork itself. Much in the same way as when you buy a photographic print, you are not buying an original film negative or a raw file, or the copyright to the image itself, but a reproduction of the original work. The specific terms set by the seller or platform on which the NFT is purchased may detail exactly what permissions are included in the sale of the NFT.

All of this means that Jack Dorsey’s tweet still exists as a tweet, and can be embedded by anyone elsewhere. Like here.

just setting up my twttr

— jack (@jack) March 21, 2006

Part of the attraction of NFTs is that the blockchain on which they live makes it almost impossible to falsify ownership of the token once it’s recorded here. Blockchain architecture means that any kind of adjustment to the block that contains this transaction would require the falsification of every other block that precedes it. This is difficult as the ledger is publicly distributed, which means a record of the genuine transaction already exists in multiple locations elsewhere.

Another benefit is that the creator of a piece of work that is sold as an NFT can continue to receive a commission every time the NFT is subsequently resold.

But the fact that the creator retains the copyright to the asset itself means that there is no guarantee that another similar work won’t be created and sold in the same way in future. It is, after all, scarcity that gives the token value. And while the purchaser of the NFT may have a unique link that directs them to the asset online, the fact that it’s not the asset itself that’s being sold means that others may still be able to view some kind of copy of it themselves (such as Jack Dorsey’s tweet).

Another issue is that the asset itself is not on the blockchain, only the token is. This means that access to the asset relies upon the site on which it’s hosted staying online.

The issue of copyfraud starts to come into play when the seller of the NFT is not the true holder of the copyright. A similar issue has long been a problem for stock image libraries; their terms may require that anyone uploading images holds the necessary copyright to them, but anyone with access to a high-resolution image that has some kind of appeal to others may still try their luck and submit this in order to profit from any sales.

The difference with NFTs is that although the work itself is not being sold as the NFT – this being little more than a receipt – and copyright is not being assigned to anyone else, someone is still attempting to profit from the sale of an asset related to a creative work protected by copyright.

Whether this in itself would fall under the definition of copyfraud isn’t clear. What’s being sold is not an artwork in itself, but a token that represents it. The reproduction of the original asset linked from the NFT would not be allowed under copyright law if the sole intention was to profit from it, however, and this would go against the terms of any legitimate platform on which it’s sold. So, at the very least, this would likely be an infringement of copyright.

For obvious reasons, the art world has long attracted fraudsters, and there’s little reason to believe that the current craze for NFTs won’t encourage similar behavior. While most NFTs sell for less than $200, some have reached seven- and even eight-figure sums. Assuming a level of interest in NFTs remains, we should expect that claims of theft and related legal challenges will only become more common.

The post What is copyfraud? And what do NFTs have to do with it? appeared first on SmartFrame.