>>13981546>This is probably true. My guess is theoretically the owners of the images could sue the people putting their NFTs as their Twitter profiles however there may be more to this as there may be fine print on the nft exchanges saying the person buying it gets rights to use the images theoretically.That might actually be a viable "business model".
Zoomers almost universally don't understand what they actually buy, legally. They almost universally think they "own" the image, which isn't even a thing at all, legally. But how much you can get out of a child is another question, even if they are in violation.
The funny thing is this NFT business is so shaky that a buyer might try to sue the issuer, too. Someone might argue the words "buy" and "own", set up a completely different set of expectations than what the contract actually says, which is btw hidden in the ToS that no zoomer will check that out evert. Maybe you could get the contract voided and force the issuer to take the NFT back (whatever that means) and return the money to the buyer. Or even claim it's misleading and deceptive on purpose and go for damages, too. That would also open the door for fraud charges..
I'm actually somewhat surprized that this hasn't happened yet. Maybe most issuers are actually anonymous and want to remain that way because he saves more on taxes. In that case the ownership claim would actually be somewhat more credible, too. But I only checked this stuff out once for a few minutes to see what so i have no idea what's normal or not. Oh, right, it would probably crash the market, too. Would make for a nice troll.
