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
There are render servers available for hire.. google is your friend :)
kyoto kid said:
A watermark is just text over the image so someone would have to painstakingly photoshop it out. You can make it semi-transparent. You can use Gimp or free apps Snapseed or PS Express on your smart phone.
Though I agree it would be more usefull, setting up a render farm is also not part of Daz's core business, and it would be crippled by not having GPUs available. I'd really prefer if they would put focus on achieving exellence in what they do before doing anything else. It would help customers and I believe Daz itself.
You can use Canva to design a transparent PNG logo. It's just drag and drop and they have some free graphics you can add, like borders and shapes.
Actually there are a lot of reasons why this isn't as simple as it sounds, but that's off-topic. But yes, it's something that we've looked/looking into.
I understand these things are hard, but also nessecary for any business, it's employees and it's customers. Good to hear they are looking into it!
what does the unlockable content mean ? you get everything in the image ?
The idea of the NFT to have a kind of turf-receipt of "owning" something on-line is fine. Especially for artists. In that DAZ has my support. But the implementation of NFT just sucks on every front.
I’d prefer they’d fix all the products I already purchased that still aren’t working correctly for months than all this NFT stuff. We, as artists, can already list our art as NFTs if we want to, why do we need Daz for this? They say they won’t sell our art without our permission, but who is going to give permission unless they get paid? Unless Daz acts as some sort of NFT agent, like a talent agent, taking a percentage? But it costs over $100 to create an NFT. I don’t really understand what exactly Daz is pushing that’s so important it took over the forums section on the header...
The very last thing NFTs are about is usefulness or supporting art. If you want an artwork then commission an artist. If you like their style then PM them and make an offer. The joke about NFTs is that you end up owning nothing other than the token itself that has no intrinsic or fixed value or physical object attached to it, other than the right to brag to others about owning said token. If George Carlin was still alive he'd have a 90 minute set just on NFTs, not this time on buy'n stuff you can't afford and don't need, but buy'n stuff you never even get to own. The epitome of stupidness.
They're pushing for non-Daz users who want to get in on the NFT gold rush to adopt Daz Studio and buy products from the store to make them with.
So the clock ticking down and all the breathless expectation and fanfare was just for that? Talk about a dry-hump.
DAZ used my art in one of their blog posts and didn't credit me until I noticed and commented.
I think that is also why everyone is dumbfounded over the enthusiasm that DAZ has shown for it and questioning "What is going on?"
If someone really wants to steal your art, the watermark isn't going to matter.
Just look at the artwork that was stolen from a DA artist, that applied a watermark, and used for a recent Magic the Gathering card.
I've also had Executive Assistants call me up and say "We have this picture and the boss wants to know if you can remove the watermark from it."
People think of watermarks as an inconvience barely understanding why its there.
Then you post that in social media where non-Daz users will find it, not in a major spot on the website that only Daz users see...
They did:
https://www.instagram.com/thediigitals/?hl=en
I don't know what it says, because I don't have an Instagram account, but it was posted about on social media.
Well, I use my website as my watermark so it can be good marketing. Someone recently told me that someone at a comic convention was showing a video they had put together of my art. I was in shock. But my name was all over it. It can look kind of tacky but I rather it looks tacky if it can make art theft more difficult. In your case I would have asked how it would be used then given them a price and sent them a contract and only remove the watermark after receiving payment. Anyone who can afford an “executive assistant” can pay for art or assets.
Oh, you misunderstand... The exec found a picture online that they wanted to use for something. Neither they nor their assistant thought anything of asking "hey can you remove this watermark?" like it was routine business.
They were shocked / appalled / offended when I told them it was immoral and potentially illegal and I wasn't going to do it.
Well, the Diigitals is Cameron James-Wilson, not Daz. So I don't know how much control they had over his branding. But at least "NFT" sits comfortably next to "Technology", another page dedicated to showing prospective users what they can do with the platform.
I still think it would have been a better move to just say,”Sure, no problem! This is how much it costs, I’ll email you a contract.” They couldn’t get offended about that. It’s just business...
I think they are saying that it wasn't thier picture to modify. It would have been illegal to remove the watermark, and doubly so to charge for that service.
Unfortunately I only summarized the conversation. It was a much slower affair... Attempting to educate them about why that shouldn't be done, how much work would be involved even if I did, the ethical and legal ramifications... All I got was the glazed over "why isn't this peon doing what I told them to do?" looks.
So the end of the conversation was closer to "I'm not doing it. And if someone else does it, I will report this whole conversation to the ethics department."
Sadly I have had to use that same phrase ALOT.
Ohhhhh... I thought they wanted it removed from his own art. That’s very different! I would have tried to find out who the actual artist is and then contact him/her.
I'm heartened to see that folks are not falling for this scam, but just wanted to jump over -- after seeing the "NFT" crud appear in the store menu this morning -- and join in the chorus of folks saying how disappointed I am in DAZ for buying into and promoting what is at best an environmentally damaging internet bubble, at worst a pyramid scheme designed to rip off digital artists with false promises.
I've already had friends discovering their artwork has been "tokenized" by some random person on Twitter, Instagram, etc and sold -- without a dime, real or crypto, going towards the actual creator. It's pretty clear by now that for all the talk of supporting "digital artists" the marketplaces have no intention of shutting this kind of behavior down or policing it in any way. Ripping off actual creators for the benefit of speculators is a feature of the NFT market, not a bug.
I've seen, as everyone has, the various stories about people discovering their "NFT" now led to a 401 page or deleted tweet, as well as the articles comparing the average environmental cost of an NFT to a transantlantic flight.
As for the likelyhood of anyone but the few lucky people sitting down when this game of musical chairs ends making any actual money -- well, a friend of mine summed that up pretty well in this tweet. There's smart people investing in NFTs... but then again, Isaac Newton lost his shirt to the South Sea Bubble.
Same old promises, same old disaster waiting to happen, new smiling face. I am extremely disappointed in DAZ for promoting this junk... and if they're hoping to "diversify", eg, betting they'll be one of the people who win musical chairs and make a fortune instead of being ruined... well, let's just say I'll be backing up all my content downloads and using up any store credit while I still can.
This helped me articulate what bothers me so much about claiming this is good for Daz artists in particular. There's a piece up on Nifty right now where the high bid is $20k, and I recognize all the hairstyles the characters are wearing.
There's still a kind of mystique to 3D, where it can look like wizardry to people who don't do it and don't know what the workflow looks like. I've seen artists strategically avoid mentioning that they use premade assets when people praise them for their skill, because fans may not even begin to imagine how you could turn a cube into a sculpture, but they can definitely imagine themselves being able to easily put a wig on a digital doll. It's easy for someone to go from "Wow, I could never do that!" to "Ugh, anyone could do that" without having any idea of the skillset involved in making a render.
This evasiveness frustrates me because Daz gave me the tools to envision how I could make 3D pictures. That eventually led to me being able to envision how I could sculpt things in Zbrush or paint them in Substance or edit them in Blender. I talk about Daz because I know there are people who, like me, need immediate feedback and constant incremental successes to wrap their brains around something, and a dressable figure is a better entry point for some people than a gray cube. Talking about it also helps audiences understand what skills render artists have, which means art that incorporates other people's assets gets appreciated for what it is and not as a magic trick.
As a marketplace, Daz is also largely artists supporting artists within a community. I don't want to speak for the people who made those hairstyles, and more users of course means more sales; artists selling assets are usually fully aware that someone could buy their pack of clip art icons for $5 and go on to use them in an app that pulls in millions of dollars they'll never see a penny of. But artists with the skill and clout to sustainably command high NFT prices are very much already aware of Daz and combine the assets they use with their own work, which is often done in very expensive pro software. Daz has not been up front about this. (Edit to be fair: the quotes from Shudu's creator touch on it, but it's also the first time I've seen him allude to using Daz--usually statements just say that he taught himself 3D modeling.) It feels really bad to imagine someone who's never done 3D before coming in and thinking they're just a few $15 purchases away from a massive payout because the assets offered here are already so high quality.
The thing that's been nagging me that I couldn't put my finger on is: If NFTs are a fantastic way for artists to get paid big money reliably, every single asset creator here is better served by selling the promo renders for their products than they are by selling beeplesque hopefuls NFT supplies.
This sounds like a digital nightmare. And a lot like flushing money down the toilet.