long as you are fullfulling a contract's requirements you are good to go
<liquid_phase> smart contracts already don't currently hold up under federal copyright law when dealing with transference of ownership. standard resale royalty conditions built into the work don't cut it in court, because a court would tell you that there's no way to adjust the arrangement due to inflation, war, or whatever other act of god they'll reference. You need to have something called assignment provision, which puts the contract and works in the hands of a designated responsible party who can make best case judgement acting in good faith of the works and the makers of the works. In the case of smart contracts, there is no assignment provision and so the base resale conditions don't hold up, and currently the BAYC collection is facing lawsuits due to this.
<blackinsecure> That depends on jurisdiction though, right?
<liquid_phase> of course, but federal copyright law is agreed upon by many major jurisdictions - though with caveats and loopholes everywhere. Generally speaking, contract law can work layers outside of international boundaries by imparting jurisdictions from either end based on the conditions of the contract being signed
<liquid_phase> this is why international rights organizations exist, tbh, they are asssignment provision in most cases for large bodies of works released across the world. they manage it on an individual country and person basis, laws by laws, but always act as contractual assignment provision
<blackinsecure> But like, for instance, let's say a party in Argentina sues another one over a smart contract on Ergo. Why would they care about US federal law? I mean, just look at tech companies that have to adapt products based on local laws...
<liquid_phase> its international contract law., held up by individual jurisdictions or not
Обсуждают сегодня