🪶RD3 | Authorship, not Ownership: Re-understanding and NFT

Authorship Team:

Lead Author // Kenneth Shultz, PE [accepted]

Author // Bradley Edward Layton, PhD PE [pending acceptance]

Editor // Ed Leite [nominated]

Abstract

A common problem articulated for NFTs is that they do nothing to assure ownership. Anyone can claim any digital asset and mint it as an NFT. This research aims to demonstrate the wholly overlooked use for an NFT: authorship.

Example: Shop Drawing Submittal Review

Equipment manufacturers typically author these drawings. If necessary, the trade contractor then marks up the submittal to prepare the document for review. The licensed designer of record then authors their judgment against the submission and sends it back as either approved or denied (resubmission required). At no point in this chain was ownership relevant to the reason for this communication chain.

That process exists to verify compliance with the construction documents. Compliance with construction documents represents compliance with the highly regulated architectural and engineering design process. The highly regulated design process is in place to ensure compliance with the code, and the code's fundamental purpose is to protect public safety and welfare.

Ownership of these documents is entirely irrelevant within this context. Nothing is more important than proof of authorship and compliance with previously authored construction records.

And so we ask ourselves, what is the name for proof of authorship on a blockchain? These authorship proofs belong to a contract. They are nonfungible in that no two authorship proofs can be considered equal. Unlike artwork or music, an authorship-based supervision compliance supply chain is strictly nontransferrable. The signed documents bind to the construction contract immutably, and the construction contract binds in perpetuity to the property.