The core developer at Larva Labs, Matt Hall, and the person behind the well-known CryptoPunks v2 and, initially, CryptoPunks v1 non-fungible tokens, commented about the copyright infringement of “the art and the CryptoPunks name”.
Hall said he will be “taking appropriate steps” from now on. This could indicate sending a takedown request to the platform hosting the auctioned content under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA.
If we were to look at the copyright law, pretends and adulterated products can have an influence on the consumer’s confidence in the initial brand, which can result in dropped value.
Did you know?
Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?
Subscribe - We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!
How to Get Free Crypto? (Explained with Animations)
Twitter user “0xStroudonian” noted that v1 and v2 contracts point to the same file.
Although users wrapped CryptoPunks v1 as ERC-721 tokens (with the goal to fix the fundamental exploit), OpenSea banned the sales. Nevertheless, later on, OpenSea invalidated the ban.
The supply of CryptoPunks should have been set at 10,000 items. However, if you were to add another 10,000 into the collection, it can lead to brand solubilization and, of course, drop the value of the collection. The question still remains if the spin-off or re-commercialization of an NFT art collection constitutes an act of copyright infringement due to a smart contract bug.
What initially happened was that Larva Labs considered their collection inauthentic and then launched another collection with a supply of 10,000 images (the initial CryptoPunks v1 was already sold out). There were 20,000 CryptoPunks out there in existence, and only the authenticity of 10,000 of them contended.
Now, CryptoPunks v1 amassed 12,069 ETH in volume traded on OpenSea. But CryptoPunks v2 surpassed the other collection amassing 819,900 ETH on the same platform.
There were a few opinions by blockchain enthusiasts on Discord, about the authenticity issues of the v1 and v2 collections.
