In the NFT world, the mfers model is considered the closest to what people think of as CC0.
Source: mfers Chinese Community
Author: alittle.bit (twitter: @seki_maruko)
Key Takeaways:
- Owning an NFT does not mean one owns the artist’s work, nor does it mean one owns the copyrights. The holder of an NFT does not necessarily own a physical work, a copy of a digital work, or the corresponding intellectual property rights under that NFT.
- Using CC0 to describe a project that “empowers the people” is not an accurate expression. Eventually, we will go back to the contractual relationship between the author and the NFT holder to verify.
- In front of the public, CC0 is no longer the traditional CC0, but a new consensus on open-source rights in the Web3.0 era. In the NFT world, mfers is currently considered the closest model to CC0, but it’s important to remember that mfers has already stepped out of the old frame and is “doing a big experiment in the new world of Web3.”
- Let’s start with CC0. In fact, in the final analysis, what we are talking about is the legal confirmation and decentralization of NFTs. Ultimately though, we found that rather than resorting to formalized legal rules that might lead to overfitting, we should examine the contractual relationships between different subjects and innovate the rules as much as we can.
- One thing is clear: as an NFT holder, you must have proof that you have that unique NFT.
- Transparency: I am a mfers holder and welcome you to discuss mfers with me.
Last week, YugaLabs, BAYC’s parent company, acquired CryptoPunks and MeebitsIP, as well as part of the NFT series. This provoked heated discussion in the circle, and the word “CC0” was repeatedly mentioned in the discussion about the distribution of copyright between project parties and holders.
Mfers must remember that sleepless night not too long ago. As Sartoshi notes in What Are Mfers, “Give NFT a CC0 license and get the intellectual property for the creator so that anyone can use it to make anything they want (re-create NFT, make merchandise, etc.)…… I decided to get mfers to do the same and do a big experiment in the new world of Web3.”
The big question is when we talk about CC0, are we really talking about it in its original meaning? In the process of spreading a legal concept, subtle changes have taken place in this scenario.
Let us go to the origin of the concept and see what it is. If there has been a deviation from the discussion, does it affect our understanding of the nature of the problem?
CC0: Only Copyrights enter the public domain, other rights are not waived
CC (“CreativeCommons”) is actually a non-profit organization founded in 2001 at Stanford University. Copyright holders join on a voluntary basis. Its goal is to “face the growing limitations of copyright law and promote knowledge sharing in participatory culture.” The operating mode of CC is mainly to encourage copyright owners to join voluntarily, controlled by the CC series of agreements, with sharing as the principle and premise. Under the premise of “reserving or giving up some rights,” copyright owners can provide their works to the public. This agreement can be applied to words, pictures, music, and software, etc.
CC0 protocol icon
CC0 specifically points to an agreement text, which is used to describe exactly what and how much copyright owners give up in order to reveal themselves to the public. CC0 has a standard document. If you are interested, you can go to CC’s official website to read the full document. I have attached the link at the end of the article. Here are just a few highlights to discuss.
(1) First of all, CC0 clearly indicates that the rights waived by copyright owners are “copyright and related rights,” such as the rights of reproduction, deduction, dissemination, performance, display and translation, etc.
(2) Secondly, CC0 implicitly makes it clear that CC0 does not involve the trademark right or patent right, and the aforesaid rights will not be waived, assigned, authorized or affected by this statement.
Maybe you will understand this, the so-called CC0 is a kind of universal agreement to declare that I give up the copyright, I give up the copyright for the public domain, and everyone can freely use the NFT. However, CC0’s announcement does not mean that I give up trademark rights, patents or other rights that I did not mention.
There is a sentence in the Copyright Law: “Information wants to be free.” Information is naturally free, and the nature of information determines that it can naturally flow freely.
If there is no copyright law, once the works are spread freely, it will be difficult to control, piracy will be rampant, and creators cannot obtain remuneration from their original works. In order to encourage cultural and artistic creation and the need for social progress, people have formulated laws and policies to turn “flowing information” into “legal property,” thus forming intellectual property rights.
At the same time, in order to avoid excessive protection of intellectual property rights resulting in monopoly, which in turn hinders social progress, the law has been balancing the rights and interests of different subjects. Therefore, many works are automatically entered into the public domain. At the same time, if creators voluntarily give up copyright and put their works back into the free-flowing world, it is also the reason for many works to enter the public domain.
Therefore, you may realize that the “CC0” we usually say is only accurate in the general term, because we have ignored the rights (trademark rights, etc.) that creators can retain under the CC0 agreement. In fact, it is what is deliberately reserved that deserves more attention, because it sets the boundaries of rights.
Do BAYC and MFERS apply to CC0, as everyone says, and are their reserved rights?
We still need to go back to the documentation, the official statement from the creator or the project’s side.
BAYC: Works Can Be Commercially Available, As Long As You Are The Holder
In fact, YugaLabs did not copy CC0’s document. I suppose they hired a lawyer to write the statement clause because the language looks very legal and fancy. In a way, however, YugaLabs is the best example of how a mature project party maximizes NFT holder rights.
I also attached the link to the file by YugaLabs for you to have a look. This file is believed to be one of the standard protocol samples of NFTs.
(1) First, BAYC confirms the fact that you “own the NFT” and “own the BAYC.” This is extremely important, but we’ll talk about why later.
(2) BAYC did not explicitly say that they “gave up” any rights, nor did BAYC mention any rights to enter the public domain. BAYC only mentioned that YugaLabs “grants” (“grant” can be understood as I did not give up the rights, I just licensed you to use) the holders of free self-use and commercial rights. Only the real holder has this right, and the premise is that the holder can ensure full compliance with the law all the time.
I believe you can feel the obvious difference between CC0 and BAYC’s declaration from comparison. If CC0 means that part of the rights of the work can still enter the public domain, BAYC is more like “make a pet of holder” and has nothing to do with anyone other than the holder.
BAYC is definitely not CC0 in that sense, but it’s a big step forward.
So, can the holder say he owns the copyright of BAYC? Yes, there are some copyrights, but just the ones in the statement.
However, if a holder’s NFT is used by others without permission, does the holder have the right to sue? This is not clear since there is no mention of this in the related statement, and unless BAYC states on other occasions, I can only assume for the time being that BAYC has not been granted the right to “sue.”
Some students may wonder whether such unilateral declaration is a “contract.” The answer is yes.
At the beginning or end of this statement would include: “If you participate in mint or buy xx, it is seen as agreeing that the terms” “agree to this statement is regarded as the two sides reached a contractual relationship.” and so on. The phrases may be different, but the basic meaning is similar (remember when using the app on your mobile phone, must click agree？);
Even if the document is expressed without legal terminology, such unilateral declarations are generally valid as long as there is no significant fraud or violation of law, and the law will not easily overturn the validity of a civil action.
（An NFT holder on Twitter shared how he used the BAYC image for beer packaging at a brewery in Michigan）
mfers: Anyone Can Use It. Yes, It’s Very mfer
Let’s take a look at how mfers handles copyright issues (exciting). Sartoshi, the creator of mfers, didn’t mention CC0, didn’t make a fancy statement, just put a simple line on Mint’s notes:
They are implementing the “public domain.”
Simple, direct and thorough, without any additional conditions and potential risks.
Its simplicity does not prevent it from forming a “contract” between creator and buyer. The more simple the expression, all the details exposed, the wider the radiation, the stronger the effect.
After Sartoshi linked up his digital work into NFT, the project was in the public domain. From this point we can say that mfer is the kind of “CC0” that everyone understands.
At the same time, Sartoshi does not mention that they want to retain trademark rights or any other rights. In this regard mfer is more unreserved than CC0;
Mfers is definitely more open source than BAYC in that it is not restricted to holders only.
However, because mfers is a public domain, Sartoshi doesn’t actually license any intellectual property to anyone.
So mfers have to ask, what are we buying?
That’s a great question (wry smile). BAYC says in its statement that the owner owns something, which is an inaccurate but meaningful expression.
In this regard, the law has not taken the initiative to give an answer. Lawyers in various countries are also paying attention to and discussing, what on Earth is an NFT？
What Rights Do We Possess Legally When We Hold an NFT?
If we logically deduce how the NFT is generated, we can see that there may be “three separations” in the process from the creation of the work to the holding of the NFT.
(i) Separation of original physical works from digital reproductions
(ii) Separation of underlying work and NFT
(iii) Separation of ownership and intellectual property rights
Imagine creating a piece of art (leaving aside music, film, or physical evidence, which are more complex), and the creator sar creates a painting called Little m (the original) on paper or electronic panels.
Next, little sar chose to copy the original and store it as a digital work, which we called Little m (the digital edition).
At this point, the first separation is complete, and Little m (the digital edition) is the digital separation of Little m (the original).
Next, little sar migrates the generated hash value of Little m (the digital edition) on the blockchain with the help of cryptography, forming a unique digital proof, namely an NFT. At this point, Little m (the digital edition) becomes the underlying work to be migrated as an NFT. NFT becomes the cryptographic representation of the underlying work on the blockchain. The second separation was also completed.
Those who buy NFTs may ask: Did I get Little m (the original)? No. Did I get Little m (the digital edition)? Emm… No. Unless the creator makes a statement promising that the original or the digital edition NFT will be delivered to you at the same time when you buy it.
But if there are no promises stipulated, then all you’re buying is just an NFT.
Although we can copy any digital work, there is only one NFT that has a hash in the digital world, and that kind of ownership needs to be proven. When the ownership is recorded on the blockchain, guaranteed by smart contracts, there is proof of ownership that no one can replicate.
What about the third separation, “the separation of ownership and intellectual property?”
In intellectual property law, the ownership of the material carrier is not equal to the ownership of the intellectual property.
For example, after little sar created Little m (the original), it was accidentally stolen by a thief while being shown of on the street. The thief only infringed on the ownership of little sar’s painting, but it does not mean that the thief who stole the painting automatically owns little sar’s intellectual property.
Similarly, after a work becomes an NFT, the NFT is the material carrier of the work on the blockchain. The work exists on the blockchain in the form of an NFT, and the NFT holder does not have the intellectual property rights of that work. So, the third separation is the separation of ownership and intellectual property rights.
Back to the theme, ownership of an NFT does not necessarily mean ownership of the NFT’s intellectual property rights. The key is to go back to the specific scene of the project and see what is the contractual relationship between the NFT creator and the buyer? Is it CC0? BAYC model? Public domain mode of mfers? Or is there a more nuanced division of rights?
Rule of Law vs. Web3 Consensus
I’m sure this must be very strange for you. In the world of web3.0, NFT is based on blockchain technology and smart contracts, writing a whole new story in the way brands connect to consumers. The brave have taken a different approach from existing legal systems such as property rights and intellectual property rights but have given us a sense of security that we lack in the legal world.
This may also be due to the lag of the legal system. But this lag was precisely the ancient wisdom left by Legislators, which made the civil legal system like a large, modest and gentle hand. The existing legal system does not act on its own initiative. It respects the will of both parties and maintains respect for free will. It is also like the conservative elder who is laughed at by everyone, but still deliberately will slow down and appear one or two steps behind the times. He wants to ensure the long-term stability of the underlying rules, rather than chase the advancement of the moment.
If the law leaves room for innovation, if the bitcoin world gives us the opportunity to recreate consensus, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed.” Both BAYC and mfers took a small step forward in copyright innovation. This could be a big step forward for web3.0.
The emergence of a public domain project like mfers has raised the question, “Would anyone be able to skirt the law in the absence of a clear owner?”
Of course, one does. In fact, the same thing is happening all the time in the non-Web3 world. Intellectual hooligans have accompanied the development of modern business, and the world’s greatest companies have experienced or are currently enduring intellectual property litigation.
The non-consensus in the current discussions around CC0 and public domain may come from a deeper consensus.
Thanks also to Sartoshi for making a bold statement that seems “non-consensus” but recapturing the “consensus” that was previously ignored.
So, do we choose to be brave enough?
After all, what we do is “no harder than spring returning to the good earth.”
And look, the Begonia flowers are in bud.
References:
whataremfers — sartoshi(miror.xyz)
BoredApeYachtClub:TheCaseforLicensedCommercialUseRights|byeconomist|Medium