Forum
OPRR
Finance
Specials
On-chain Eco
Entry
Podcasts
Data
CC0 fork in the road, the business experience of NFT blue chip projects
Summarized by AI
Written by: 0xLaughing, Rhythm BlockBeats
The past week can be called "Week of CC0 NFT":
< p>On August 1, the well-known encryption artist XCOPY released Tweets, announcing that all his works (excluding collaborations) will be converted to CC0 licenses;
On August 3, the encryption organization a16z issued a document " Why NFT Creators Should Embrace CC0" to further discuss CC0 NFT;
On August 5th, Moonbirds founder Kevin Rose officially announced that Moonbirds will also be converted to a CC0 license, allowing public domain Moonbirds has no threshold for commercial use and creation.
During the encryption bear market, the trading volume of NFT continued to decline one after another Our discussion on CC0 NFT was pushed to a climax, and a fire seemed to ignite in the "winter" of the NFT market for a while.
Article Directory
1. What is CC0?
Traditional CC0 license
When NFT adopts CC0 license
2. How do each NFT project handle its copyright issue?
NO CLAIMS
GRANT EXPRESS RESTRICTIONS AND LICENSE
Release the copyright of the work to the public domain
3. How is the development of NFT projects using CC0 licensing?
Nouns' cross-border cooperation on the big screen
Moonbirds "reversed" halfway and caused controversy
4. What are the considerations of NFT projects for CC0?
High-end brands need to maintain scarcity
Betting on the positive flywheel of meme self-communication
The ultimate vision of decentralization
5. Conclusion
What is CC0?
Traditional CC0 License
CC0's Official page The most striking thing is "no rights reserved"
CC0 is a non-profit organization Creative Commons (Creative Commons, CC) launched in 2009 to give up copyright and put works into the public domain Copyright Digital Licensing. Strictly speaking, CC0 is not a license contract involving two parties, but a unilateral statement from the copyright owner.
Simply put, once a copyright owner declares a CC0 license, it means that the The copyright of the works adopting this statement is waived to the maximum extent permitted by law in the world, after which anyone can unconditionally use the work for commercial/non-commercial purposes without identifying the author and source without any application , and the obligee or owner has no further right to pursue responsibility.
It should be noted that CC0 statement only waives copyright, but not trademark rights, patent rights, and other rights not mentioned; CC0 claims are perpetual and irrevocable.
When NFT adopts CC0 license
For the NFT project that declares the CC0 license, this means that the creator and holder of the NFT will give up the copyright and open it to the public domain, This gives the market full freedom:Anyone can freely copy, disseminate, and modify image content for secondary creation without permission, and can use it for any commercial/non-commercial purpose, regardless of who Whether you really own this NFT.
Moonbirds2's transaction volume once surpassed the original series, and was removed from the shelves due to trademark infringement, but it did not infringe copyright
Take Moonbirds, which just announced the adoption of CC0 license, as an example, even if you do not hold a Moonbirds NFT, you will not be accused of infringement even if you do these things:< /p>
Modify and re-create the image of Moonbirds NFT, both original works and new creations can be sold;
Print any Moonbirds NFT image on clothes for sale, and the proceeds will not belong to the project party or the holder, but 100% to you;
Re-link the original or second creations of all the images in the entire Moonbirds NFT as a new NFT project for sale, as long as you do not use the name of Moonbirds (in fact, many new NFT projects have done this, such as Boonmirds, 3D Birds, Rug Birds).
In fact, the sudden conversion of Moonbirds to CC0 has aroused dissatisfaction among many holders. NFT projects have different attitudes towards CC0.
How do various NFT projects deal with their copyright issues?
There are differences in the copyrights granted by NFT creators/projects to NFT holders for related works , the following three schemes are the most common:
1. Without any statement, let NFT holders has a vaguely defined default license;
2. grants explicit restrictions and licenses, usually for commercial and non-commercial use of the work respectively;
3. Open the copyright of the work to the public domain, that is, adopt the CC0 license.
There is no statement that NFT holders have a vague default license
Currently most NFT projects adopt this scheme, which is caused by many factors:< /p>
Some NFT projects are not large enough in scale and influence in the initial stage. In other words, individual infringement incidents have little impact on the brand;
NFT is an emerging industry, and the current relevant laws and regulations are not perfect. NFT creators/projects are at a loss. They would rather adopt this insurance "ostrich strategy" than risk themselves as "the first to eat crabs people".
The total market value of CryptoPunks once exceeded 3.4 billion US dollars
Using this The biggest controversy of the plan began when it was still under Larva Labs' CryptoPunks, from 2017 Judging by the snapshot of the page when CryptoPunks went on sale on June 10th, the entire site does not have any copyright notices.
At that time, it was likely that Larva Labs lacked consideration for copyright issues, and did not expect that there would be One day Free Mint's CryptoPunks will become a "behemoth" with a maximum market value of more than 3.4 billion US dollars and dominate the NFT market.
In 2019 Watkinson announced that CryptoPunks adopted the NFT license created by Dapper Labs
According to report, in 2019, Larva Labs co-founder Watkinson announced in the CryptoPunks Discord channel that they will adopt NFT license created by Dapper Labs. The NFT license allows the holder of the NFT to display the artwork and only allow it to be used for commercial purposes if the annual revenue does not exceed $100,000, but the holder cannot modify the artwork or use it for marketing to third parties product.
CryptoPhunks' work image
At the end of 2021, there is a The CryptoPhunks NFT series was released for the project side of NotLarvaLabs, challenging CryptoPunks' ambiguous copyright statement. The image of the work of CryptoPhunks NFT is almost completely copied, but the face of the work of CryptoPhunks is changed in the opposite direction. Since then, Larva Labs counterattacked, and CryptoPhunks was permanently removed from the official OpenSea website.
“I have the ownership of NFT, but I don’t have its copyright, it Who does it belong to?"
This dramatic scene sparked Holders were dissatisfied and discussed fiercely. Opponents believed that its approach was contrary to the vision of resistance to censorship and decentralization. Many holders chose to leave CryptoPunks at that time.
The omission of the copyright statement at the beginning has become a "historical problem", Larva Labs is like mans Stab the back and fall into the predicament of going back and forth.
Express restrictions and licenses are granted, usually for commercial and non-commercial use of the work respectively< /h4>
Most well-known blue chips adopt this scheme, which only grants "partial rights ”, such as BAYC, Meebits, CloneX, Azuki, Doodles have clear and strict instructions on copyright.
BAYC: Allow holder to use for commercial purposes
BAYC holders are allowed to use the purchased NFT works to create and Sales of derivative products are allowed for commercial purposes, but BAYC's brand LOGO and name cannot be used.
For example, people who have purchased BAYC NFT can print this BAYC pattern on clothes for sale , and 100% of the profits obtained belong to the holder. Take the "China Li Ning x BAYC#4102" shown above as an example, images and names with NFTs such as "Boring Ape#4102" and "BAYC#4102" can be used number, but the words "Bored Ape Yacht Club" and the official LOGO cannot be used. In addition, there are many successful commercial use cases, such as top music distribution company Universal Music Group announced the formation of BAYC Digital metaverse band KINGSHIP formed with MAYC, BAYC#6045 has signed with Major League Soccer to become a virtual The striker of the field and so on.
CloneX: The holder's NFT works (cannot contain Takashi Murakami elements) are allowed to be used for commercial purposes, but Fill in the form to apply, and the company should not be too large (the number of employees is less than 1,500 and less than $40 million in annual revenue).
Azuki: The holder's NFT works are allowed to be used Commercial use, but cannot use trademarks, for cooperative works and third-party works, the consent of the official and the holder is required.
Doodle: The holder's NFT works are allowed to be used Commercial use, but requires the use of the doodle image in its entirety, i.e. the character of its creation cannot be split. And for derivative products that sell for more than $100,000, you need to communicate with the team.
Open the copyright of the work to the public domain, that is, adopt the CC0 license
There are many well-known NFT projects that have declared the CC0 license, such as Mfer, Nouns, CrypToadz, Blitmap, Goblintown, and just announced Most of the projects in Moonbirds, which adopted the CC0 license, and the Free Mint market that exploded in the previous stage adopted the CC0 license.
How is the development of NFT projects using CC0 licensing?
Some NFT items such as Mfer and Nouns are "Born with CC0", while others are Will their fate be the same if Moonbirds "turned back" to join in the middle?
Nouns cross-border cooperation on the big screen
Nouns is a CC0 NFT project based on Ethereum, which generates avatars based on nouns, that is, people, things and places. Nouns DAO is responsible for the governance of the project. Every day, a Nouns NFT is generated and auctioned. Up to now, a total of 401 have been generated, and the floor price is maintained at a high price of 98 ETH.
It is worth mentioning that the founder of Nouns 4156 was originally a loyal supporter of CryptoPunks, but as mentioned above, Larva Labs' restrictions on copyright caused his dissatisfaction, and he eventually sold created his own NFT CryptoPunks#4156.
The beer brand Bud Light used the Nouns glasses LOGO in the advertisement
People don't care whether Bud Light actually holds Nouns NFT, CC0 gives it copy, The right to disseminate and use for commercial purposes. In a way, this reinforces the self-propagating effect, and as spinoffs like Bud Light x Nouns are created, attention shifts to the original, further cueing brand awareness.
Moonbirds "reversed" midway caused controversy
< /p>
Moonbirds announces transfer to After being licensed by CC0, the floor price has been falling all the way
As for the Moonbirds who "turned back" halfway, CC0 It seems that the advantages have not been reflected, but it has attracted a lot of problems:
The sudden announcement of CC0 caught many people off guard, and many holders believed that the team's decision-making was too hasty and centralized, and they did not communicate with the community in advance, which was contrary to the spirit of decentralization of Web3;
"It seems to be delegating power, but it is actually a violation of rights." Many NFT holders do not want their NFT to be used by others For commercial purposes or to make derivatives, changing to CC0 midway deprives NFT holders of "exclusive" rights;
The team was questioned about Soft Rug. In the inherent impression of many people, too much decentralization may mean that the team no longer wants to manage the brand with heart. "Freedom to let savage growth" has become a shield for Soft Rug.
What are the considerations of the NFT project for CC0?
High-end brands need to maintain scarcity
Tiffany and CryptoPunks collaboration Pendant
Take the cooperation between Tiffany and CryptoPunks as an example, there was Report, the American jewelry brand Tiffany & Co. announced the launch of the "NFTiffs" NFT series. The series is limited to 250 pieces, priced at 30ETH, and can only be purchased by CryptoPunk holders. At the same time, holders of "NFTiffs" will receive Tiffany's custom-designed physical pendants based on the characteristics of the CryptoPunk provided by the holder.
Rare is more expensive, CryptoPunks as "NFT's Wright Brothers Aircraft", scarcity is Its natural moat, its status is to be compared with the top luxury brands in the real world, and there is nothing wrong with restricting copyright. Luxury goods do not win by quantity, but by the value-added of the brand. The value-added of the brand comes from the sense of exclusivity created by the luxury brand. "Cannot be obtained easily", this is a class ladder that needs to be maintained to maintain scarcity. CryptoPunks protects its own brand by restricting copyright, so that it can cooperate with other companies and brands to obtain greater benefits.
"Do you think NFTiffs selling 30ETH is expensive? Sorry, maybe you are not Target customers."
Betting on the positive flywheel of meme self-propagation
< p>When CC0 and meme are combined, there is no doubt that the first thing that comes to mind is Mfer.
Founder of MfersSelf-report: "Sow a seed and let it grow wildly". Most people find Mfer's image very funny when they see it for the first time: with a few rough lines, you can outline a lazy figure, just like yourself nestled in front of the computer.
Mfer's second creation let It can spread more widely
Its image naturally determines that it is suitable for spreading as a meme, And when people spread the meme, it is not for profit, but for fun. CC0 also liberates the limitations of copying, dissemination, and secondary creation. The self-propagation effect allows the project party to enjoy the traffic bonus without hard promotion, and quickly accumulates a large amount of attention, funds, and talents. The more people join, the more will inspire more creativity, eventually forming a positive flywheel. This is why most grassroots projects chose CC0 in the Free Mint market a while ago. In the bear market environment, in the fight for stock funds in the NFT market, only betting on the positive flywheel of meme self-propagation can Get a place.
The Ultimate Vision of Decentralization
In announcing Moonbirds' move to CC0 licensing, Kevin Rose wrote: "Intuition is to protect what you create, but Web3 is an opportunity to We re-examined everything from first principles. It was an opportunity to be more inclusive and open to all.”
It is true that NFT project parties are privatized legal entities in the free market, and they are free to do anything as long as the law allows. And this kind of "excessive centralization" is contrary to the ideal of Web3 without trust and decentralization. Web3 needs more freedom and composability. The founder of Mfer, Sartoshi, "officially announced his escape", released "the end of sartoshi", and then deleted his Twitter account and handed over the smart contract to the community. Now Mfer still has tenacious vitality. Maybe we will look back one day in the future. Discovery is a step towards Mfer's ultimate vision of decentralization.
Conclusion
< /p>
XCOPY's tweet about CC0< /blockquote>
At present, the relevant laws and regulations on NFT are not perfect. As an "exotic product", CC0 is also "unacceptable" in the process of adapting to the laws of various countries. Whether to choose CC0 still needs many considerations.
XCOPY says, "I haven't seen CC0 Summer yet, but I believe it will will come.”
< /p>
Whether CC0 will be the final solution to NFT copyright in the future is still unknown, but at least, this scene of "a hundred schools of thought contending" makes us look forward to the future.
欢迎加入律动 BlockBeats 官方社群：
Telegram 订阅群：https://t.me/theblockbeats
Telegram 交流群：https://t.me/BlockBeats_App
Twitter 官方账号：https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia
