It's true, but it's not really a big deal. The NFTs are just links pointing to an image, the holder could literally tweet that link and it wouldn't diminish its value because what matters is that the blockchain says that the holder owns that link.
there is no actual contract signed or legal proof of ownership of the NFT. I believe (THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE DO NOT FOLLOW THIS) the hack like the one in the OP cannot be legally punished except for illegal access to the website.
The person who owns the link is whoever is registered as the domain owner in the respective name server. The NFT has nothing more to do with the link than if I pasted it in this post.
It's true, but it's not really a big deal. The NFTs are just links pointing to an image, the holder could literally tweet that link and it wouldn't diminish its value because what matters is that the blockchain says that the holder owns that link.
there is no actual contract signed or legal proof of ownership of the NFT. I believe (THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE DO NOT FOLLOW THIS) the hack like the one in the OP cannot be legally punished except for illegal access to the website.
The person who owns the link is whoever is registered as the domain owner in the respective name server. The NFT has nothing more to do with the link than if I pasted it in this post.