Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) is trying to clean up the cryptographic mess. Last week, the company introduced what it calls the “Can’t Be Evil” license. This is a set of contracts that allows creators to grant partial or near-full rights to their NFT art to non-fungible token holders.fighting a problem Many experts have voiced — one that consistently undermines the claim that NFTs allow you to “own” the work.
of “Can’t Be Evil” License (named after the common name Claims about blockchain business) is based on the Creative Commons (CC) copyright framework. But unlike Creative Commons, which provides blanket licenses to a wide audience, the a16z license establishes a relationship between the purchaser of the NFT and the person who created the original art associated with it.
As explained in the blog post, the license is intended as a relatively simple but legally sound framework for setting rights for NFT owners, and is open to modification by individual projects. This is something of many NFT projects, including some big brands like the Bored Ape Yacht Club. fail consistentlythere is already trying We have not been able to create a standardized NFT license, but so far we have not seen the kind of success that Creative Commons has achieved in the non-cryptographic world. And having invested heavily in the crypto ecosystem, a16z has a vested interest in solving this problem.
The most extensible license is CC0 contractAnyone can remix or redistribute the work. Besides that, there are 5 categories. “Exclusive Commercial Rights” gives the buyer the exclusive right to freely use the Art. “Non-exclusive commercial rights” do the same, but the creator of the NFT also retains the right to use the art. There is also a version with a non-exclusive commercial license that is revoked if the NFT is used for hate speech. This includes defamatory, harassing, fraudulent, or “vulgar, cruel, illegal, or obscene” use.
In addition, there are also two “personal use” licenses, which allow you to copy and display the art, but not use it for commercial purposes. One of these involves hate speech agreements. the other is not.
Licensing also addresses the issue of sublicensing. It’s basically how NFT owners allow others to use their art on her T-her shirts, TV shows, etc. and what happens to that deal if they sell the NFT. These licenses state that subcontracting agreements terminate immediately upon sale, so new buyers cannot obtain her NFTs already tied up in deals with other people. (On the other hand, creators who license someone’s NFTs will have to accept some degree of uncertainty about their future.)
The agreement also specifies that copyright is only transferred if the NFT is legally sold.
a16z frames the copyright license as a more “unreliable” version of NFT ownership. This is correct in a way. Rather than relying on handshake deals and vague promises, it could make the token’s legal value more explicit. These license disputes are often resolved through an outdated legal system. This is a mindset with which many of his NFT creators are increasingly comfortable.
