NFTs could be useful. They are not useful without the legal title / rights of traditional physical and digital property being linked to them.

Smart property could exist but the terms of the service/property would have to be built around the NFT. Presently, no NFTs actually have this legal side figured out. There is no there, there. There's the vision for these tokens to mean 'ownership' but as far as the art itself, the rights don't transfer. Nothing is granted. Nothing is owned. You can't stop someone from using the NFT art, only the original artist/company can.

There's only one current use case for NFTs, and most of these companies have no interest in building support due to the uncertainty of KYC requirements, money transmitter licensing and etc.

That is online game access/items/cosmetics. Skins. TF3 hats, etc. Anyone who is using NFTs this way, currently, is probably doing a scammy fundraiser taking on these risks because they're not putting up their own money, anyway. Also they're not borrowing the money to build this, the players are giving it to them. Once the legal situation is clear, we could see more games integrate NFT items/cosmetics giving players transferrable license tokens. You still won't own the art. You still won't own the game. The thing is, they could already do that, without NFTs and the legal uncertainty. They just don't want to. They want everyone to buy everything again, from them, not permit resale.

NFTs could be useful, but they're not really, not without the rights enforcement of the state being involved and that is antithetical to the whole DeFi/web3 ethos, I would think.