I understand the value of tying a NFT to a physical artwork, or tying an NFT to digital goods used in a digital application such as a game.
What I fail to understand is tying an NFT to a digital artwork solely for the purpose of having digital art on the blockchain.
Finally, NFTs ensure rarity by tracking the history of each artist so you know the exact number of artworks in circulation.
This does not apply to digital art.
If the digital art is displayed on a website then anyone can copy it.
On the aspect of PHYSICAL art or rarity having a blockchain record- I can COMPLETELY understand that to prove chain of custody for authentication.
Reading the article posted above:
Digital art forms have been around for years, but were difficult to monetize. This is because of the ease with which they could be replicated. Artists were unable to prove ownership of their works. Therefore, it was difficult to build a marketplace around digital art works.
↑ this is very NOT true.
If you copyright an image then you can prove it's yours.
And placing digital art on the blockchain does not make it un-copy-able.
It also does NOT prove you own the rights to the artwork.
If I copied "Starry Nights" to an NFT that is not proof that I own the rights to Starry Nights.
So imagine going to a place like Shutterstock. Buy reuse permission to one digital artwork such as "Dad Hugs Wife #1552"
Then upload the not-watermarked copy to an art NFT website. The fact that you have an NFT token associated with that digital art will not grant you copyright protection to it in ANY court.
So whoever paid $777,777.77 for that digital art that I herd about in the news...
It really sounds like a fool and his money were parted.