NFT’s (Non Fungible Tokens) as Art. You in?

[poker]

It’s the new craze…. Selling NFT’s.



Would you purchase one?

Here is a decent article explaining what they are…

What Is An NFT? Non-Fungible Tokens Explained

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) seem to be everywhere these days. From art and music to tacos and toilet paper, these digital assets are selling like 17th-century exotic Dutch tulips—some for millions of dollars. But are NFTs worth the money—or the hype? Some experts say they’re a bubble poised to pop

www.forbes.com

My personal thoughts. Yes… they are here to stay. But people will create so many, and their value will be based on demand (hype). The type of people who collect these seem to like newer things. I am not willing to invest. I still prefer tangible art and music.

 

[Valcazar]

It's even stupider than it sounds when you describe it.
Some people are going to be able to make some money out of it, but it is a horrible thing for artists over all.

This is long, but good.

 

[poker]

It's even stupider than it sounds when you describe it.
Some people are going to be able to make some money out of it, but it is a horrible thing for artists over all.

This is long, but good.

Hmmm… an NFT sex doll collection. I may be on to something here!

 

[Valcazar]

Hmmm… an NFT sex doll collection. I may be on to something here!

GENIUS!!!

 

[escortsxxx]

It's even stupider than it sounds when you describe it.
Some people are going to be able to make some money out of it, but it is a horrible thing for artists over all.

This is long, but good.

Why ? I can see some cases but as an artist myself I did think it was a good way to protect your art - at least the glimmers of such a system in the digital age.


What are the key bad points in your opinion?

 

[Jasmina]

Zero intest in that ponzi scam. Unless you are already stinking rich - you are the chump. Don't do it.

 

[y2kmark]

Zero intest in that ponzi scam. Unless you are already stinking rich - you are the chump. Don't do it.

You could use the surplus you have from your bitcoin holdings...

 

[Jasmina]

I sold most of my bitcoin in November when it hit around 82k CAD per.

You could use the surplus you have from your bitcoin holdings...

 

[Butler1000]

So at this point no. But in the future something like a Banksy type of artist may come along in conjuction with an Online Metaverse where digital art may end up having value.

Remember value can come from scarcity, transferablity, and portability. And from perception. Art is traded now as a commodity, never actually leaving a climate controlled warehouse run by auction houses.

And also remember that online gaming has its own ecomony, where rare gaming weapons, armor and equipment, and even rare skins for toons are bought and sold for real money. This csn end up as the next place for cash for wealthy people.

 

[Toxboy75]

Company's have signed deals with many major sports organizations like MLB, NBA and NFL and are already producing NFTs making them similar to trading cards. There is an online market where certain scarce NFTs have sold for hundreds of thousands. There are many digital artists making limited edtion NFTs. Of course there will be collectors who are in it long term and speculators who are in it to make a quick buck.

 

[SchlongConery]

 

[|2 /-\ | /|/]

Company's have signed deals with many major sports organizations like MLB, NBA and NFL and are already producing NFTs making them similar to trading cards. There is an online market where certain scarce NFTs have sold for hundreds of thousands. There are many digital artists making limited edtion NFTs. Of course there will be collectors who are in it long term and speculators who are in it to make a quick buck.

Yeah there is definitely a use case for them like in your examples or movie ticket with a unique design with say only 1000 released of something like that. Many possibilities.

Some people are also looking to add things like legal documents like birth certificate or contract or will on the blockchain so it exists forever.

Unfortunately there are a lot of scams as well, money laundering, and many more sophisticated scams.

I am staying away from this stuff until I am convinced I understand it first and not contributing to any scam.

However I do see the potential here especially to protect art and artists.

Imagine if we had all original ancient books on the blockchain that were destroyed through history. Library of Alexandria comes to mind.

 

[JackBurton]

No. I already had a pet rock as a kid.

 

[Valcazar]

Why ? I can see some cases but as an artist myself I did think it was a good way to protect your art - at least the glimmers of such a system in the digital age.


What are the key bad points in your opinion?

How would it protect your art in any way?
Yes, maybe you could get someone to buy the NFT and make some money, but an NFT isn't a copyright as far as I know.
Maybe you could build a copyright/ownership scheme around NFTs, but why would you?

 

[Jasmina]

It doesn't. People can still just right click and save as and take your work. Owning an NFT does not equal owning the work. It's a scam.

You don't even own right to usage, you can get sued by the artist if they decide they don't want their work out there or it was stolen to begin with.

How would it protect your art in any way?
Yes, maybe you could get someone to buy the NFT and make some money, but an NFT isn't a copyright as far as I know.

 

[Valcazar]

It doesn't. People can still just right click and save as and take your work. Owning an NFT does not equal owning the work. It's a scam.

You don't even own right to usage, you can get sued by the artist if they decide they don't want their work out there or it was stolen to begin with.

Exactly.
I haven't really see anyone make a convincing use case for it at all that wouldn't be served better by a regular database.

 

[Jasmina]

Yup. I'll stick to selling my paintings on ArtPal.

Exactly.
I haven't really see anyone make a convincing use case for it at all that wouldn't be served better by a regular database.

 

[escortsxxx]

Yup. I'll stick to selling my paintings on ArtPal.

As my understanding the block chain reveals that you are making an illegal copy. Currently a copy is the same as the original pre NFT - the NFT tech ads an extra layer of date/time to copyright claims at the least and more in some cases


Do NFTs protect artists?


They founded the first version of ownership proof for original digital work, backed by blockchain technology, and called it “monetized graphics.” This “system of verifiably unique digital artwork” is now known as NFTs. The purpose of it was to help digital artists protect and monetize their work.Jan 29, 2022


Does it work now? Yes because it is unknown and removal/copy of NFTs have yet to be created. Will it work a week from now? Maybe. Will it work for more than a few years ? Unlikely.

The fact that copyright cases take so long to win even if the damages for stealing as single photo is a 30 k or so after legal fees and time as an hourly wage often its not worth it if you don't have a strong vengeance/justice streak.

 

[Valcazar]

As my understanding the block chain reveals that you are making an illegal copy.

How?
The block chain wouldn't record anything to do with you copying it.
The only thing that is non fungible is the token. Not the art.

Currently a copy is the same as the original pre NFT - the NFT tech ads an extra layer of date/time to copyright claims at the least and more in some cases

How?
The NFT says you "own" the link.
If the artist moves it to another link, you now own a link that points to nothing.
If I am the artist, it provides me with nothing other than someone paid me for the rights to a link.
Everyone else can go to the link.
Everyone else can go to the link and copy the piece and put it up at another link.
Everyone else can then sell an NFT to that new link.

Do NFTs protect artists?


They founded the first version of ownership proof for original digital work, backed by blockchain technology, and called it “monetized graphics.” This “system of verifiably unique digital artwork” is now known as NFTs. The purpose of it was to help digital artists protect and monetize their work.Jan 29, 2022

Does it work now? Yes because it is unknown and removal/copy of NFTs have yet to be created. Will it work a week from now? Maybe. Will it work for more than a few years ? Unlikely.

The fact that copyright cases take so long to win even if the damages for stealing as single photo is a 30 k or so after legal fees and time as an hourly wage often its not worth it if you don't have a strong vengeance/justice streak.

Where did you copy this from and why would you believe it?
Yes, when they made "monetized graphics" the idea was to protect artwork.
They knew they hadn't solved the problem, but they thought maybe they were pointing in the right direction.
They were wrong.
Nobody improved the idea and moved it towards a way that would work to protect artists.
They just took the shitty idea that didn't work and marketed the fuck out of it to run some scams.

Now, could you attach the commercial rights to a piece to the NFT?
Maybe. That would just be copyright law, though. And even then, I'm not sure how putting it in an NFT makes it any better than the legal records you have now. You will still have to go to court to defend your rights when someone violates it.

 

[escortsxxx]

How?
The block chain wouldn't record anything to do with you copying it.
The only thing that is non fungible is the token. Not the art.



How?
The NFT says you "own" the link.
If the artist moves it to another link, you now own a link that points to nothing.
If I am the artist, it provides me with nothing other than someone paid me for the rights to a link.
Everyone else can go to the link.
Everyone else can go to the link and copy the piece and put it up at another link.
Everyone else can then sell an NFT to that new link.



Where did you copy this from and why would you believe it?
Yes, when they made "monetized graphics" the idea was to protect artwork.
They knew they hadn't solved the problem, but they thought maybe they were pointing in the right direction.
They were wrong.
Nobody improved the idea and moved it towards a way that would work to protect artists.
They just took the shitty idea that didn't work and marketed the fuck out of it to run some scams.

Now, could you attach the commercial rights to a piece to the NFT?
Maybe. That would just be copyright law, though. And even then, I'm not sure how putting it in an NFT makes it any better than the legal records you have now. You will still have to go to court to defend your rights when someone violates it.

I admit that the band wagon is NFT as you say but as designed and still can be used they are IN the art itself. The art becomes a piece of crypto of itself. To copy it says the copy is the fake number 2 etc etc. only 01 is the Real one. Is it used by most this way? No but it is done and CAN be done. There are other benefits too - the art careers a record of proper owners as well. If someone uses your art all copies are informed of the illegal copy, instant detection of unauthorized coping.
The theory would be that like DVDs eventually only art as NFTs would be legal at all - google for example would auto delete all none NFT images from its search - a form of DRM.

Thus:
NFTs fulfil an authenticating function for a small fraction of digital art—digital images that “live” and circulate on the network. This ironically led to the now-common practice of artists and gallerists minting NFTs for stills or brief clips from more complex, often generative and interactive digital artworks that are available for lower prices than the excerpted images being offered as NFTs. Whether digital images benefit from the immutability provided by NFT authentication is yet another question. In his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction (An Evolving Thesis 1991-95)”, Douglas Davis makes a case for the originality of the moment when we copy and revise digital images whose power often resides in the possibility of remix and free circulation.

SEE

The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction

In this article, originally published in the MIT Press Journal Leonardo in 1995, Douglas Davis argues, "there is no longer a clear conceptual distinction between original and reproduction in virtually any medium."

issuu.com