NFT and the Future of Digital Content
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Correct.
As I said upthread, the purpose of it seems to be less owning a thing, and more owning the experience of interacting with a thing. It seems like a way to monetize the end-user's relationship with the art, more than the art itself.
As I also said upthread, it's braindead, pants-on-head stupid.
Wait for it...
Wait for it...
Next on Daz's horizons... Print on Demand...
Wouldn't non-fungible be a good thing? Fungus infestation between your toes can be painful
My thoughts exactly, you must be dutch.
People can make copies of the Monalisa, but will there really be a market for that? Is someone really going to pay for a photo, just because it's on the blockchain? Where I see the value is if a publisher creates a limited edition run of a book with a unique cover and a code stamp. They only release 100 copies. People can reprint as many as they like, but that would be akin to scanning and printing limited edition baseball cards. The reprints won't have any value, and unlike art in the real world, which is so easy to forge nowadays, digital assets can be traced and verified.
Now, whether there is a market for digital assets is yet to be seen, but there are people who pay $5000 for a unique ship in Star Citizen simply for the bragging rights, so who knows.
a soak in a weak solution of condy's crystals (potassium Permanganate) can fix that
Nope...lol
Which sounds like other voiced fears about money laundering, etc with NFT's are indeed valid fears.
That is something that has been brought up in the past, I'm curious what your views are on it.
I'm not sure if it is feasible but if you could opt-in on a gallery image and allow other community users to get a print of your gallery image and have some portion of that sale show up in your store credit account, would that be interesting?
Yes, but I wouldn't have a wallet because I want nothing to do with this nonsense. So what is stopping Joe Blow from selling an NFT to my artwork? Nothing.
yes, nothing's stopping them from doing that, and even if Daz distanced themselves from the idea, there would be nothing stopping people from doing it anyway.
As a hobbyist, I can tell you this would bring me much more trouble than benefits. Foreign income to be admitted and counted in my yearly tax form would be just one of the troubles.
To be fair, Daz doesn't have the power to stop digital theft and NFTs didn't invent it. Anyone could have saved an image off the gallery and done what they pleased with it before all this, practically speaking. NFTs didn't cause that. NFTs are supposed to follow the same laws that are supposed to protect intellectual property, it's just those aren't that easy to enforce.
I considered doing this on DeviantArt, but decided not to because even though it said "your image is big enough to print!", they really aren't. At least not to print to my standards. Not to mention making sure monitor to print color calibration would be a crapshoot and you could wind up with unhappy customers. I'd have the same fear about Daz doing it...especially given the gallery upload size limit and the fact that you can only upload a .jpg. Who wants a print from a .jpg?
My point is that NFT's would make it easier for thieves by adding even more incentive to...thieve.
Agreed!
That's true. The price points are up there.
Posted this in the sales thread but repeating it here in hopes DAZ_Rawb will see it and be able to correct it:
I could have sworn I've uploaded .pngs in the past.... I used to only use them. Do they get converted?
Perhaps. There are other retailers who do a similar sort of thing. However, there are two issues I would like clarified.
First, what share are we talking about? Of course DAZ would need to deduct the actual cost of printing and shipping, but what share of the profits would go to DAZ and what share to the artist? I don't know the rates at other sites, but I would expect at least 50% of the profits for the artist.
Second, store credit is nice, but money is nicer. As an artist, I would spend some of it at DAZ, but I would also like to be able to pay my rent.
Cashy money and you can count me in. There's something a little messed up about only offering in-store credit.
The whole scheme just don't make any sense to me at all.
"SC20 + Unlockable" is selling for 0.04 ETH which is $73.78. There are a 100 copies for sale. So there will be 100 "official owners" that have provable ownership of the code behind the image/video.
The true value of the item is what someone is actually willing to pay for it. So verifiable ownership of each one could, theoretically, be $73 if someone is willing to pay for it.
By looking at the code of the site I was easily able to locate the .MP4 of that image. I was then able to hotlink to it and download a 16 second clip at 1920x1080. Which I can make a million copies of if I wished and is worth exactly nothing.
Where is the incentive to pay $74 for this? In what realm does this item actually go up in value? Where does someone rationally believe that a slightly animated interior of a starship that goes for 14 seconds is worth having the "real" copy of?
The gallery accepts PNGs.
You forgot that you will get an item that was used in or created for the render. Whatever that means. A DAZ potted plant, a pile of nicely animated poo? That is not mentioned in the details. Could also be a Genesis 8 figure pointing a finger at you while rolling on the floor, laughing.
Well, you could come to the forums to say that you bought it and we'd all go "My, aren't you a savvy investor with excellent taste. Wanna carry my books?"
I've considered selling unique character kits as adoptables, but in that case the buyer would 1) pay me directly with real money, and 2) get the materials/shape/etc. that come in a character kit rather than an exclusive warm fuzzy feeling.
And yeah, the buyer could give other people access to it if they wanted to. The thing is, my friend has had her art stolen and spread all over the internet. People have uploaded it to Instagram, used it in memes, reposted it on Twitter, and mistaken it for official art. She can't keep up with it and it's been demoralizing for her. In every case, having minted her work would have made zero difference because the problem is people spreading unique uploads. I very rarely see disputes over art theft come down to who originally made it these days; it's more like one person saying "I made this, I didn't give you permission to post it, take it down" and another one saying, "Make me" and blocking them.
Ah, well, at least DAZ is clear about this:
(Not my usual style of responding; I guess the best thing to do is just ignore it...)
Yes, that would be too "company store" LOL
You're basically paying real money for the "privilege" of being the guy who posts "First!" on a Youtube video. Everybody can watch the video, but only one person can have that first comment.