Munkul
Jack of some trades, Master of none
- Messages
- 7,770
- Location
- Cumbria
Your version of NFT mona lisa will never be replicated... but what's to stop someone else creating a very similar but slightly different version and owning that NFT?
- Thread starter badabec
- Start date
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,163
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
That's exactly my point.
However there is also nothing to stop someone creating another NFT off of my digital image - an NFT does nothing to copy protect the original digital item.
slim_boy_fat
Member
- Messages
- 29,532
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Handy for covering bloodstains on a wall too - oops, did I just post that on an open forum
? Nothing to see here, move along please 
.
Gareth J
Member
- Messages
- 3,679
- Location
- North Cornwall
What's to stop someone creating a replica of any bit of art. Or indeed, in the case of Duchamp's urinal, just buying the next one off the armitage shanks production line?
slim_boy_fat
Member
- Messages
- 29,532
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
slim_boy_fat
Member
- Messages
- 29,532
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
.NFTs are also used by some photography houses, think wedding photos etc. It means they can supply digital originals but maintain their royalties. Kind of like when you want copies of the original prints and the photographer charges you again.
But, the main use case seems to be for pornography. If a photo is considered to be porn that's one thing. NFTs, regardless of content, are classed as "Art" so laws need updating it seems.
But, the main use case seems to be for pornography. If a photo is considered to be porn that's one thing. NFTs, regardless of content, are classed as "Art" so laws need updating it seems.
Munkul
Jack of some trades, Master of none
- Messages
- 7,770
- Location
- Cumbria
turn all porn into protected NFT and half of the internet will dissappear
It's funny how we all look at these new fangled things and think it's weird yet all money is the belief in value of something which in essence is no different.
A £10 note isn't really worth anything it's just a way of bartering for a service or goods. In the old days it was a simple "I'll build your wall if I can have one of your pigs" Money is just a way of translating/transferring that perceived value.
A £10 note isn't really worth anything it's just a way of bartering for a service or goods. In the old days it was a simple "I'll build your wall if I can have one of your pigs" Money is just a way of translating/transferring that perceived value.
That perceived value is being manipulated, like when ebay actions "sold" new £5 pound notes with low or interesting serial numbers for £1000's, no one is actually buying it, they are fake auctions to atificially raise the perceived value and the only way people make money is by others losing it. Fake sell for £1000's then really sell it to someone jumping on the band wagon for £100's and they think they got a real bargain until they realise a £5 note is worth £5.
PhillipM
Member
- Messages
- 3,051
There's way too many people that jump on the hate bandwagon without understanding a damn thing about what they actually are away from how they're being abused at the minute.
It's a transparent ownership token that can be tracked by anyone and everyone wanting to purchase something.
It's no different to being able to check the MOT history of a car online. Or having the deeds to your house/land registered with the government. It's just a contract or token that's not interchangable because it's specific to one thing.
They're merely an open way of doing similar things on a blockchain so it can't be altered or messed with and is right there for anyone to check.
You can also do more interesting things like attaching your licencing terms to things so it's always passed on with whatever is sold, or even a percentage cut for reselling or derivitive works (so you can for example sell someone base artwork that they can add to and they can sell copies on with you recieving a royalty fee - and that will work for people purchasing those with the same fees, contract, etc.)
You can attach it to something physical if you like, doesn't have to be digital. If the current owner of the Mona Lisa made an NFT for it in order to sell it on (given it's very common for famous art to remain at a gallery even though it might get sold between different 'owners' over the years) , you could then use that NFT to see exactly when, who and where it sells to every time, provided it's always sold on the blockchain - and you can make that a part of the contract of the NFT sale if you like so everyone can double check the contract right there before they purchase it.
People seem to think NFT's should magically protect things against theft, they don't, they're just a contract. Enforcing contracts or doing your own due diligence before purchasing something is still your own concern. NFT's just give a non-centralised, transparent way of doing some of that.
If you're dumb enough to buy ownership of the Mona Lisa as an NFT from a random nobody without checking they were the original owner, that's your own dumb fault, same as it would be if you did the same thing from someone selling it on ebay.
It's a transparent ownership token that can be tracked by anyone and everyone wanting to purchase something.
It's no different to being able to check the MOT history of a car online. Or having the deeds to your house/land registered with the government. It's just a contract or token that's not interchangable because it's specific to one thing.
They're merely an open way of doing similar things on a blockchain so it can't be altered or messed with and is right there for anyone to check.
You can also do more interesting things like attaching your licencing terms to things so it's always passed on with whatever is sold, or even a percentage cut for reselling or derivitive works (so you can for example sell someone base artwork that they can add to and they can sell copies on with you recieving a royalty fee - and that will work for people purchasing those with the same fees, contract, etc.)
You can attach it to something physical if you like, doesn't have to be digital. If the current owner of the Mona Lisa made an NFT for it in order to sell it on (given it's very common for famous art to remain at a gallery even though it might get sold between different 'owners' over the years) , you could then use that NFT to see exactly when, who and where it sells to every time, provided it's always sold on the blockchain - and you can make that a part of the contract of the NFT sale if you like so everyone can double check the contract right there before they purchase it.
People seem to think NFT's should magically protect things against theft, they don't, they're just a contract. Enforcing contracts or doing your own due diligence before purchasing something is still your own concern. NFT's just give a non-centralised, transparent way of doing some of that.
If you're dumb enough to buy ownership of the Mona Lisa as an NFT from a random nobody without checking they were the original owner, that's your own dumb fault, same as it would be if you did the same thing from someone selling it on ebay.
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,163
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
For MOTs there is a single trusted authority: the DVLA. For houses it's the land registry.
That is not the case with NFTs: I could claim to be the trusted authority for NFTs around my avatar image, but so could you, and so could the next guy.
So I'm not sure your comparison is fair.
Greeves246
Member
- Messages
- 1,606
- Location
- Cheshire uk
Isn't that an oxymoron?
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,598
- Location
- devon, uk
I very much liked William Gibson's sprawl trilogy as a teenager. I've not checked but I believe these may have been the books that are attributed to bringing the term "cyberspace" into common language.
Regardless, in the books the internet is a 3D representation. A (very) crude virtual world. Glowing lumps to represent multinationals rather than virtual sex with aliens, if you see what I mean?
Anyway, we are getting to the point where plots in various metaverse startups are now going up for sale.
This is, much more, akin to the early days of the web, where three letter domain names etc were still standard pricing.
But...
As we saw with the web, the constant expansion of domain suffixes has meant that no domain name really has that significant a real world value. I mean some more than others, sure, but, really, you could register "sarahjones.pl" and if your SEO was good, the domain name would make little difference, but the current implications (from those selling) are that now is the time to get your plot in the future metaverse equivalent of "park lane" before everyone else realises they want to have their corporate office there.
Personally I think it unlikely to be an issue. The beauty of digital data is that its space constraints are minimal. I suspect a wholesale shift to a system that promotes a retrograde shift to space being important is unlikely.
But either way, that's all a lot more interesting (to me) than buying (often, I believe, non unique) minimal digital rights to some image or other.
Regardless, in the books the internet is a 3D representation. A (very) crude virtual world. Glowing lumps to represent multinationals rather than virtual sex with aliens, if you see what I mean?
Anyway, we are getting to the point where plots in various metaverse startups are now going up for sale.
This is, much more, akin to the early days of the web, where three letter domain names etc were still standard pricing.
But...
As we saw with the web, the constant expansion of domain suffixes has meant that no domain name really has that significant a real world value. I mean some more than others, sure, but, really, you could register "sarahjones.pl" and if your SEO was good, the domain name would make little difference, but the current implications (from those selling) are that now is the time to get your plot in the future metaverse equivalent of "park lane" before everyone else realises they want to have their corporate office there.
Personally I think it unlikely to be an issue. The beauty of digital data is that its space constraints are minimal. I suspect a wholesale shift to a system that promotes a retrograde shift to space being important is unlikely.
But either way, that's all a lot more interesting (to me) than buying (often, I believe, non unique) minimal digital rights to some image or other.
PhillipM
Member
- Messages
- 3,051
That's the land registry we had a thread on here about a few weeks back 'cause it turns out people can sell your house while you're on holiday and it happens to a few hundred people a year, right?
The point is the trusted authority for art, is the artist, and since the NFT allows you to track all the way back to the artist, you can do your own due diligence easily. You don't have to rely on some random organisation that might screw up in the red tape and leave you stuck.
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,163
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
Uhhh... how's that?
The NFT is just a selection of ineditable records (blockchain). If the artist proclaims that he/she started or authorised that NFT then.... sure... ish... but there is nothing to stop them creating a new NFT (like when there are 500 prints of a work of art) so there is no guarantee of authenticity, of ownership, of originality or of uniqueness.
And there is nothing to stop me creating an NFT and laying claim to your work. I don't want to spam links of random "See! I found an interweb to prove my point!" content, but this is a really good article that attempts to explain how NFTs could have been good but have ended up "drawing an extraordinary range of grifters and spammers".
NFTs Weren’t Supposed to End Like This
When we invented non-fungible tokens, we were trying to protect artists. But tech-world opportunism has struck again.
www.theatlantic.com
