> It has an owner. Its copyright belongs to the photographer who took it - Dave Roth, father of Zoë Roth, the girl in the picture. If you ever see it reproduced in a newspaper article you’ll see him credited.
Note that we casually may call him the owner, but having certain legal claims such as copyright is not the same thing as the legal concept of ownership.
This is relevant, because pointing to a picture on the wall saying "yeah, that is an original Disaster Girl print" is a very different social flex than saying "I am the artist of this well-known photograph". The latter doesn't really need nor benefit from an authenticated digital print on the creators wall; of course the artist can print dozens of copies and they are all authenticated.
For Dave Roth to sell the the copyright or certain license rights to the image is just such an entirely different transaction that I am not sure why NFT critics keep mixing them up.
Note that we casually may call him the owner, but having certain legal claims such as copyright is not the same thing as the legal concept of ownership.
This is relevant, because pointing to a picture on the wall saying "yeah, that is an original Disaster Girl print" is a very different social flex than saying "I am the artist of this well-known photograph". The latter doesn't really need nor benefit from an authenticated digital print on the creators wall; of course the artist can print dozens of copies and they are all authenticated.
For Dave Roth to sell the the copyright or certain license rights to the image is just such an entirely different transaction that I am not sure why NFT critics keep mixing them up.