Flow NFT License Project

I think one more permission we have to grant or at least express is: NLP-MOVE

IANAL but seems currently license doesn’t allow bridging of NFTs cross-chain ( with the holder restriction ) This seems to be a bit debated subject, we don’t have bridges yet but soon this can be a bit a problem.

This is an interesting question! From an IP perspective, however, I don’t believe that moving the content associated with an NFT from one chain to another would be an actionable event that would require a specific license right.

I think tokenomics and underlying content license should be dissociated.

VOTE and ACE are related to tokenomics (generally things that will happen in the future and might not have control over) while the rest are about the underling content I just purchased (that happened in the present/past).

Absolutely agree. This is why the VOTE and ACE mechanics are described in a section that is not the “License” section. These are not content license rights, and so we need to treat them differently.

I have a scenario where I am not sure if this could be covered by the these licenses structure and the proposed implementation. But this is not my area at all so maybe I just need some more explanation :slight_smile:

What I want to do is separate the COM license from a ACE license. There are 3 roles in this scenario. First of all the artist (creator) of a piece of work. Second is a retailer that offers products (physical and digital) that are based on the artist’s work. The third is the NFT holder. These 3 roles could be held by 1 person or 2/3 different persons/accounts.

If I understand correctly:
The artist has the IP rights, so won’t need a license. The retailer would need the COM license. The NFT holder who receives royalties from the Retailer’s sales linked to the NFT they hold, I think this would be a ACE license.

Does this make sense and would it be covered by the proposed licensing structure?

@jedilawyer Can you take a look at the above comment?

I also had to open up a new PR with the NFT License view changes (same as the old one) so please take a look when you get the chance! @bluesign I’m curious to get your feedback on it in particular because I don’t think you’ve looked at the implementation yet. Thanks for the help!

sure having a look just now ( I peaked over before, but for sure it evolved a bit )

I have a scenario where I am not sure if this could be covered by the these licenses structure and the proposed implementation. But this is not my area at all so maybe I just need some more explanation :slight_smile:

JL: Hi, FreezeM - that’s great. We appreciate you jumping in with your questions.

What I want to do is separate the COM license from a ACE license. There are 3 roles in this scenario. First of all the artist (creator) of a piece of work. Second is a retailer that offers products (physical and digital) that are based on the artist’s work. The third is the NFT holder. These 3 roles could be held by 1 person or 2/3 different persons/accounts.

If I understand correctly:
The artist has the IP rights, so won’t need a license. The retailer would need the COM license. The NFT holder who receives royalties from the Retailer’s sales linked to the NFT they hold, I think this would be a ACE license.

Does this make sense and would it be covered by the proposed licensing structure?

JL: I’m assuming, in your scenario, that the Artist is the original content creator. Assuming that’s the case, the Artist owns the underlying, developed intellectual property (IP). So, the Artist, as the owner, is the one who grants the licenses, not the one who receives them.

Next, I’m assuming that the Artist is planning to tokenize that IP by minting it as one or more NFTs. The Artist then gets to choose which rights she wants to give purchasers of those NFTs - that’s what the NFT License Project is intended to help her with.

Let’s deal with your question about the Retailer first. In order to legally commercialize the Artist’s content associated with an NFT, the Retailer needs some sort of license do so. The Retailer can get such a license directly from the Artist independent of the NFTs (by virtue of some sort of license agreement), or by purchasing one of the Artist’s NFTs that’s offered under either a COM license (which gives full commercialization rights to the underlying content associated with the purchased NFT) or a MERCH license (which gives more limited commercialization rights to the underlying content associated with the purchased NFT). If the Artist offered certain NFTs under COM/MERCH licenses, anyone who owned the NFT would be permitted to commercialize the content associated with that NFT (thereby becoming a “Retailer”). Note that this right would restricted to the content associated with the NFT that the buyer actually owns. If the goal is for the Artist to enable the Retailer to commercialize a larger superset of the artists’s IP, then some sort of a formal license agreement is a better mechanism for doing that than having the retailer purchase individual NFTs.

Your question about the “NFT holder who receives royalties from the Retailer’s sales linked to the NFT they hold” is a bit confusing to me in this context, and makes me think that the license agreement approach is the way to go. The Artist, as the IP owner, is the one that will receive royalties from the sale of her NFTs (both royalties from the initial sale, and downstream royalties from secondary sales of those NFTs over time). The purchaser of the NFT does not receive royalties, as such - unless, I suppose, those purchasers receive an ACE license, with the additional benefit being a cut of the Retailer’s royalties. If that’s what you’re thinking about doing, then a formal IP license to all of the artist’s IP should happen first, and the Retailer should mint and release the NFTs for sale themselves (as opposed to the artist) - and those NFTs would be sold under an ACE license. You wouldn’t need a COM license at all, since that would be covered by the IP license agreement between the artist and the Retailer.

In short, it sounds like the project you’re thinking about needs a bit more fleshing out. Hope this helps.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the scenario I posted @jedilawyer . Your feedback helped to realize maybe I should not attempt to capture every aspect of the IP and licenses in a single blockchain contract. The objective is that an artist can upload their work to the retailer’s platform, without having to understand anything about blockchain or minting a NFT. That is all taken care of by the Retailer. The Artist should share in all the proceeds from their design, including the sale of physical products (prints) and the sale of a NFT of their design. My initial thought was to put all of that in a single contract, so that all IP and Licensing aspects are transparently covered in a single place.

I don’t want to highjack this thread my diving too deep into my specific scenario. So I guess the generic question is if the current proposal and implementation allow for multiple licenses to be granted in a single NFT contract to different entities. Where not all licenses will be transferred when the NFT is sold.

Each unique NFT can only have one license associated with it. That license can contain a variety of elements, but you couldn’t offer a particular unique NFT (e.g., NFT #345) under two separate licenses. That said, you could offer one unique NFT (e.g., NFT #345) under one license, and another unique NFT hashed with the same or similar content (e.g., NFT #346) under an entirely different license. The purchaser’s rights in their NFT would depend entirely upon which license happens to be associated with the NFT they bought.

1 Like