In my view, ignoring all the froth due to fools thinking NFTs are a get-rich-quick scheme that might actually work, it is all governed by the usual copyright, trademark and contract laws and what matters is what a court is likely to decide when someone sues.
Suppose a case goes to court to decide who own the copyright on an MS-paint badly drawn cat. Party A says they bought it from scam-see dotcom and they have an emailed receipt and payment record. Party A says they never sold it. They can subpoena records from scam-see
Party B says that they bought the NFT from a Russian hacker on IRC, they have a secret magic number that they could use to add an entry to blockchain. Party B says that means they own the copyright.
The judge is going to ask Party B if they have a signed contract.
The judge is going to ask Party B if they can point to the section in copyright law that says knowing a magic number means you own the copyright of an image.
In my view, the judge will rule that party A owns the copyright.
At that point all the blockchain bullshit falls apart.
If someone wants to sell the copyright on a badly drawn picture of a cat outside of a 'crypto market' then they can write a contract on a piece of paper and have both party's sign it, perhaps getting a notary to stamp it and getting someone to witness the signing.
In my opinion, that is likely to be more expedient then hoping you can convince a judge that whoever has the newest secret magic number owns the copyright.
In that way, people could pay with card and obtain the NFT without ever having to deal with a crypto wallet or any cryptocurrency. But with the same distributed benefits that any other NFT has.