Every few years the Internet creates a huge new category of intellectual property that didn't exist before. Social media is a recent example. Social media accounts have become THE most important IP for many people and companies. But social media accounts don't even fit neatly within traditional IP laws such as patent, copyright and trademark. They're defined and governed more by their technology features, network effects, and online T&Cs. It's a similar story for domain names, mobile app stores, cloud computing resources, etc. Huge IP categories "invented by the Internet", and governed by their own technological and network features (at least as much as they are by traditional IP laws).
NFTs are also a new type of IP being created from Internet technology and its network effects. NFTs are subject to traditional IP laws, and NFT creators and users should understand and respect those laws. But NFTs don't fit neatly within existing IP laws. The rules of NFT code and networks will do much (most?) of the work to define and govern NFT rights and value. Also, NFTs are built on open and decentralized blockchain software/networks. This means that individual developers and creators will set and control many of the rules that govern NFTs, and compete with one another by offering different governance & rules (e.g., for ownership, uniqueness, exclusivity). Contrast this with Web 2.0 where the rules are largely set by a few huge tech companies.
When services like YouTube & Twitter launched, IP law experts and even sophisticated technology investors didn't "get them". The value of social media companies was hard to understand because they didn't own IP in the traditional sense. Most of the traditional IP was actually owned by the end users (e.g., UGC such as user- uploaded videos, images, and text). So social media companies looked like silly toys at first. Until they grew, and their network effects kicked in. Then the network effects and the related ability to establish rules -- for content publishing, data use, and commercialization -- became IP in their own right. And that IP now sits at the center of some of the world's biggest companies.
NFTs may be misunderstood today similar to how social media companies were misunderstood at first. Many NFTs look like silly toys or memes, and they're criticized because they don't fit neatly within traditional IP laws. For example, "why would I pay for a photo that's all over the Internet?", or "why would I buy a dunk highlight I can already watch on ESPN?" These criticisms have merit, especially if you're trying to understand and value NFTs through the lens of traditional IP laws. But it may be that NFTs are (or can become) a new type of IP that's not properly assess/valued by traditional IP principles. A photo that can be programmed to automatically pay royalties for views, or a video clip that's programmatically recognized by a network (and the network's users) as being the 'original'. These things are new and different from traditional IP. Over time, the features and network effects that grow up around these NFT assets may make them into IP in their own right - an IP that's new and different potentially very valuable.
Thanks for reading. Follow along on Twitter for more about building the property rights stack for Web3.