NFTs

[Aiden]

MLM for dudes

[Oniya]

MLM for dudes

Amway for the cyber-crowd.

[Humble Scribe]

In more 'NFTs are modern tulipmania' news:

The value of the NFT of Jack Dorsey's first Tweet has gone from $48 million to $280.

NFTs are just receipts. Receipts can be useful, but a receipt for a piece of digital art that anyone can copy is obviously not. Outside of the web3 hype about automated digital trading that doesn't pass through any kind of regulation, which is obviously 99.9% bullshit, I am sure that people will come up with plausible uses for NFTs. I just haven't seen one yet.

There are plenty of scams in the world of crypto. I maintain that that doesn't mean that the entire concept is flawed, but a healthy scepticism is certainly necessary. One point that this article points out, however, is that a lot of the NFT scam techniques, from pump and dumps and wash trading to rug pulls, are all tried and tested from conventional stock markets, with some internet pixie dust sprinkled over the top. Same as those 419 emails we used to get in the 00s were just the old Spanish Prisoner advance fee fraud routine rebaged for the internet age. But stock trading is still a thing.

[Twisted Crow]

Amway for the cyber-crowd.

Quite literally how I tried describing (my understanding of) NFTs to my parents!

[Lust]

I actually know some of this... We talk about this a lot in the art community.

NFTs were originally designed for digital artists as Art Historians were having trouble keeping records of a digital artwork, who made it, where it got sold, and where it ended up. It's branched out a lot since then but that was the original design. It was supposed to "help" digital artists keep their files and make it easier to "sell" digital downloads without giving the full file away...

Because before NFTs Digital artists literally were giving the entire file to the person they sold it to. Which meant the artist no longer had any legal rights to their own material. Not saying this is the only use for it now but that's the general idealism behind why it was created.

I just know a lot of digital artists were looking at this as a cure-all for keeping their own copyrighted material with being able to sell X amount of downloads to someone that could then replicate it but ultimately the artist would still be known as they were the ones that "created" the NFT. Vs the way, it was done before where artists would give the entire file and someone could and would claim "they" created the artwork and give no credit to the artist.

There are still loads of kinks to work out from what I've seen but it's something I hear talked about as being an artist in my community. Everyone is hoping it becomes backed because it would help a lot of Art Historians and Artists (like I said it's branched out so it's not just for that purpose anymore but from my own understanding that was originally why NFTs were created).

[stormwyrm]

Because before NFTs Digital artists literally were giving the entire file to the person they sold it to. Which meant the artist no longer had any legal rights to their own material.

This is not strictly true. If you are the author of a digital artwork, you fully retain the copyright to that work, unless you make some kind of legal agreement with the person you sell it to. That means that if someone used your artwork without your permission, you could in theory contact them and ask them to stop or allow them to continue use after negotiating royalties, or sue them if they refuse to negotiate. You may need to register the copyright in certain jurisdictions (e.g. in the US) in order to pursue litigation, as it would otherwise be rather difficult to show that you actually created the work in question and that you created it before anyone else. I suppose one of the original intents behind NFTs would be to provide an alternative to copyright registration, which can be expensive, but by itself I don't think it can really do even that. Is a court of law going to accept the NFT as proof that you are the original author of a work? I have my doubts that this is going to fly.

[Lust]

This is not strictly true. If you are the author of a digital artwork, you fully retain the copyright to that work, unless you make some kind of legal agreement with the person you sell it to. That means that if someone used your artwork without your permission, you could in theory contact them and ask them to stop or allow them to continue use after negotiating royalties, or sue them if they refuse to negotiate. You may need to register the copyright in certain jurisdictions (e.g. in the US) in order to pursue litigation, as it would otherwise be rather difficult to show that you actually created the work in question and that you created it before anyone else. I suppose one of the original intents behind NFTs would be to provide an alternative to copyright registration, which can be expensive, but by itself I don't think it can really do even that. Is a court of law going to accept the NFT as proof that you are the original author of a work? I have my doubts that this is going to fly.

Right now they don't, but the courts also weren't doing anything about digital artists who claimed copyright and were suing. Not arguing just stating my knowledge of the issues, there is a lot of stuff I don't know. There was a lot of issues and ultimately courts weren't taking it seriously so...I can see NFTs being a middle ground but from my knowledge it's still similar problems where the courts won't take it seriously. It just makes it harder for someone to say they made the work that actually didn't with NFTs because they can track the person who originally made the NFT...

That was just a big issue since I myself have dealt with copyright issues and people taking an image of my artwork online and claiming they were the artist, when in fact they were not. Even when asked for that person to remove the artwork, they can refuse. Then one has to prove that you physically created the artwork which is where issues arise because... I'm not the only person that's run into this and it's hard to prove that you created the artwork even with copyright (and contracts) unless you have physical evidence of you making the artwork to show...which is why most of us (not all) were hoping NFTs would solve most of those issues. That's just my experience with Copyright issues and digital art. In theory yes, it's supposed to protect work but honestly...there are a lot of gray areas to all of it that get overlooked.

I'm still an Optimist and I'm hoping NFTs do become regulated and all that not just for digital artists but for other areas too. (Also sorry if that comes off as me arguing, I'm not looking to offend anyone just debating ^^)

[greenknight]

they can track the person who originally made the NFT...

Except this means nothing. If you, for example, have a picture posted on Deviant Art, I can be the first to generate an NFT that links to the work and sell it. That's why NFTs will never be a useful as a means to verify things like copyright ownership. That you can just change the link is one reason why NFTs are just a scam.

[Tolvo]

That seems like people are selling more aspects of their labor than they should. Typically artists who sell art digitally will specify whether you get the work sheets. Typically work sheets are not sold along with the finished unless someone is really willing to pay or the artist is being manipulated.

In general the simplified way I explain why NFT's are worth money that they can be boiled down to being similar to pyramid schemes. To make any money you need to get someone else to buy in from you so that you can pass the buck of the losses or profit off of their losses.