Can I earn royalties every time someone resells my NFT? + Other Artist Rights Questions Answered – artnet News | Candle Made Easy

Have you ever wondered what rights you have as an artist? There’s no definitive textbook to read from – but we’re here to help. Katarina Feder, Vice President at Artists’ Rights Societyanswers all kinds of questions about what kind of control artists have over their work – and what kind they don’t.

Do you have a request of your own? E-mail [email protected] and it may be answered in an upcoming article.

I’m an artist interested in making an NFT and I’ve heard that I can put something in the code that will ensure I get paid if the NFT is resold. How does this work?

As someone who has delved deep into NFT land, I can report that there is a lot of misinformation out there. People trying to land a deal will provide artists with a long list of the purported benefits associated with NFTs, and the truth is always far more complicated.

In theory, NFTs give creators the ability to set their own terms — including resale royalties. While I couldn’t be happier that the private sector has embraced this concept, it’s important to remember that we are dealing with extremely new technology. As a result, there are many ways for buyers to circumvent the rules. The most important of them: NFT marketplaces do not exist yet interoperable. This means if a user buys on one Ethereum-based platform and resells on another, buyers and sellers can bypass the resale terms by doing the transaction off-chain.

(One notable exception is Top Shots, the NBA’s NFT marketplace for game clips sold like trading cards, which operates on its own proprietary chain called Flow. Top Shot NFTs can only be bought and sold on that chain.)

I have no doubt that future NFT technology will bring interoperability between marketplaces and clearer and more defined rules. For now, however, keep creating, keep shaping, and set the conditions for your own work. Just hope that others behave responsibly.

Taylor Swift. Photo: Andrew H Walker/Getty Images.

Why is Taylor Swift re-recording her first six albums? I read all these articles about how the new songs are better, but was their main motivation aesthetic or legal?

Taylor Swift works in mysterious ways, and it’s often hard to guess why she does what she does. For example, how can she be so consistently surprised by the bad behavior of the A-lister she’s dating when her misdeeds are the subject of 75 percent of her artistic output?

Swift is an acclaimed songwriter, so you’d assume she owns all the rights to her own music. In fact, her previous label, Nashville’s Big Machine, owned the master recordings for her first six albums. This arrangement wasn’t actually that strange considering how young Swift was when she started. But imagine their anger when the label was acquired for $300 million in a private equity deal in 2019 by Scooter Braun, a talent manager credited with discovering Justin Bieber and with whom Swift already had beef. A year later, Braun sold the Swift Masters to the Disney family’s Shamrock Holdings for an additional $300 millionPart of a more recent passion for song catalogs as an investment vehicle which we have covered earlier in this column.

You can see why Swift was upset. Jokes aside, their music is very personal, so the idea that it could be sold twice for such astronomical amounts without getting a dime must have been infuriating. (Although of course it’s still a no-brainer compared to what happens to many artists at auction! ARS is currently lobbying Congress for resale rights.) A helpful graphic from The Wall Street Journal shows Swift’s problem here: There’s the song and the recording. Swift wrote the songs and owns the rights to play them at concerts, but he doesn’t own the original recordings, which Shamrock wants to play in elevators over and over again ’til we die.

So Swift did what she usually does when she’s seeking revenge: record it. The results are two versions of Fearless and Red where “(Taylor’s Version)” appears after the album titles and each song on the album. There are changes that have taken place heralded by critics, yes, but for the most part the albums are the same, because that’s the point. She wants everyone to use these new recordings as canon and not Shamrock’s. Swift covers up, strongly advocates for artist rights and make tons of money. It’s a narrative we like to see in ARS, even if it’s kinda more conceptually complicated than Song-by-song version by Ryan Adams 1989.

Opening of 'Dutch and AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS - OCTOBER 11: A visitor photographs Rembrandt's painting The Standard Bearer during the exhibition at Rijksmuseum on October 11, 2019 in Amsterdam, Netherlands.  The exhibition, a partnership between the Rijksmuseum and the Museo Nacional del Prado in Madrid, explores the connection between Dutch and Spanish painting traditions.  Getty Images.

A visitor takes photos of Rembrandt The Standard Bearer at the Rijksmuseum on October 11, 2019 in Amsterdam. Photo: Getty Images.

I am writing an article about an artist. May I include photos I took of this artist’s work in museums? What about photographs of works in a book about the artist? Of course, I will always cite the source.

An important question! Is this artist alive and if not when did he die? If it’s been more than 70 years, then their works are in the public domain and you don’t need to get permission to use them, regardless of the purpose of the article.

As for your question about photographing other books, I would advise against it. Even if the works are in the public domain, there’s no telling how many other organizations might be involved, including the original photographer and the book publisher.

In short, it’s always safest to ask permission. If the nature of your article is scientific and non-commercial, there’s a good chance the intellectual property owner will waive fees.

Yuga Labs, 101 Bored Ape Yacht Club (2021).

yuga labs, 101 Bored Ape Yacht Club (2021).

Someone recently tried to explain Bored Ape Yacht Club to me. Do I understand correctly that the creators sold the intellectual property? As creators, weren’t we told to “never sell our intellectual property”? What gives?

Ah reader, kind of call me! You’re right. I’ve said many times in this column that a creator should never sell their intellectual property (or copyright) because after you’ve sold the painting, that’s all you have left to control the history of your work. But this situation is a little different.

For those who don’t know celebrity preferred Project, Bored Ape Yacht Club (or BAYC) is a collection of 10,000 programmatically generated NFTs this gave a new twist to the idea of ​​buying art. When a buyer buys a bored monkey, they not only acquire that drawing, but also the underlying intellectual property rights.

Someone I met recently bought five Apes and made his own derivative project called Pirate Ape Yacht Club. In theory, if someone wanted to make a movie based on the Pirate Ape Yacht Club, they wouldn’t have to go through the Bored Ape creators because my Pirate Ape collecting partner owns all the IP for their works.

That sounds good, but it’s also almost the only case I can think of where such an IP would be valuable. Here’s another one: Maybe you’re a celebrity and people love your particular Bored Ape so much that they want to wear it on a t-shirt? Kind of a stretch. The press-shy creators of Bored Ape have of course retained the intellectual property rights to their name and concept, meaning they still own the core assets, one You recently signed a license deal with Adidas.

NFTs have created a new class of conceptual art where the terms of purchase and the act of buying and reselling are all part of the performance. And while I don’t want to discourage you from buying intellectual property, I still advise caution when selling it because once it’s sold there’s no way to get it back (see: Swift, Taylor). If you do If you wish to experiment, be sure to speak to an attorney who can advise you on retaining other rights, much like the creators of Bored Apes did with their title.

Follow Artnet News on Facebook:

Want to stay one step ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the latest news, insightful interviews and incisive critical statements that drive the conversation.

Leave a Comment