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
While others reflect and apologize, we have a Ministry of Truth.
...so you're implying we shoudl jsut let oursleves be screwed. In the traditional art world there are means to deal with theft and forgery..
...it's not so much compensation as it's more about protecting one's work from plagiarism, misrepresentation (claiming another person's work as your own), and/or unsolicited/inappropriate use.(such as adverts and other use [like political campaigns] without permission). Unfortunately unlike say a large company or highly successful songwriter/band, we don't have the financial and legal resources to protect our intellectual property. I have been involved with an organisation which is working to champion rights and protections for digital, artists, writers, and musicians, but even so it's a long arduous road ahead.
...⬆ This ⬆
...⬆ oh and this too ⬆
There's a wiiiide margin between "no protection" and "ridiculous music industry level protection".
Some protection is good, sure, but not when it gets to the level it can ruin other peoples lives, often harms people's creations and has a generally negative impact on the thing it's supposed to protect.
I've had people "steal" my stuff, but I wouldn't want them in jail or financially ruined for life because of it, or a system put in place that limits the creations of others to prevent it.
NFT is a fad. It's not resolving any issues but creating new ones. There are different mechanisms of ownership that are much more efficient, both in terms of speed and energy consumption.
...not talking about throwing people in prison or bankrupting them with lawsuits. I was lookign for some way to "copy protect" our work against piracy as was done with game discs, music CDs, and DVDs. You could play, listen to, and watch, to your heart's content, but you couldn't burn copies to sell or give away. Watermarks while currently the only protection, tend to ruin the image for viewing purposes. Imagine going to the Louvre in Paris and seeing a semi transparent logo plastered over the Mona Lisa.
Other than that we have no protections. Several years ago there was a situation with a rash of art theft over at DA . I basically turned off downloading rights for all my work there, people there can still fave a work but clicking on the thumbnail opens it in my gallery where the rules I set up are in effect.. Unfortunately the one loophole is the right click "save image as" since there is no mechanism to prevent it..
Like I mentioned above, the bottom line is not wanting my work to be misrepresented or used for something I don't agree with or support.
https://www.daz3d.com/home It's right on the front page.
The timer is there, but it says nothing about NFTs. That part is just trolling and people aren't checking for themselves.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something, as this isn't within my fields of expertise, but as far as I can tell:
1) This doesn't actually prove rights to the asset, as there's nothing preventing anyone from creating an NFT out of something they don't own, not even if someone else created an NFT out of it.
2) This doesn't actually prevent someone from stealing the asset (except in a few limited ways) the same way they're doing right now.
3) However, it fails to solve these problems in a very wasteful and inefficient way, which is only feasible because society as a whole shoulders the vast majority of the cost of doing it.
But then again, I still don't understand why cryptocurrency wasn't banned a long time ago, why bitmining isn't essentially the digital equivalent of breaking and entering, or why any sovereign state would tolerate it, so what do I know.
Like ArtStation found out, there can be fairly serious backlash against mainstream business that hop on bandwagons surrounded by this kind of controversy. If you're in a business that relies on the goodwill of your customers to keep paying you for copyrighted goods you don't want to throw away the moral high ground for a few pieces of silver.
Thanks, I forgot that I don't visit DAZ through the main page (I go right to the store front page). Shudu is the Digiital Arts guy with the virtual runway models? Kinda sounds like a weird combination of things that very few people here are asking for.
I think the main point I was making was that the music industry is probably a good example of how protection can be a detrimental thing if not kept in balance or in check. So while on one hand theres a need, there's also a need for limitations of those protections/protectors for the good of everyone involved. So basically, caution is needed to not create another bloated, harmful monster like that which often damages the people it protects.
I also dislike watermarks, they look bad. I mean, I do paintings and don't "sign" them either for the same reason. I spend lots of time making stuff look as good as possible, a big name scrawled across the front or some other junk doesn't usually help. I suppose there's those "digital watermarks" that are basically invisible, but still, if someone wants to take stuff they probably will regardless (and it's not like watermark removal isn't a thing).
Things like disks work in a kind of "closed" system so are a bit of a different case. You can only play a game on a game machine, or play a DVD in a DVD drive, etc. However, images as we use them, are much more widely applicable. Unless you had some kind of "viewer", it would be hard to control their use in a similar way outside of a similarly closed system. A copy protected new image format would be another option, but probably take some effort to get people to adopt over the widely used JPEGs and PNGs, especially if the singular draw was just added DRM. It would also be rather easy to bypass using loads of obvious methods. A browser extension that didn't show images on sites without the embedded right keys? It would work in theory, but easy to bypass with a "cleaned" version or just using a different (or older) browser.
Soo, what to do? I mean, as an anecdote, many performing artists basically ignore piracy completely or welcome it. They get basically all their money from tours/merchandise and so treat piracy as free promotion to the thing that actually (usually) gets them the most income. So a visual artist version would be, I don't know, streaming creative sessions and selling books with exclusive "never internetized" pictures? I'm terrible at money making but something like that.
Or course there's the more personal level of misrepresentation like you said (which is also something I really don't like). Buuut, we don't really have much control over that. I'm not really sure of a system that would, but it certainly isn't these tokens.
Sort of. Cameron-James Wilson is the Diigitals guy, and Shudu is their best-known model.
I had to google shudu also. :)
Looks like she's a digital character created by a photographer.
https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/shudu-digital-supermodel/
explains the attitude shown
I am out of here
At first, most goverments were against crypto currencies because it was very much outside their control, you needed only an AMD GPU and good to go; depending on your energy cost you could recover your invesment in one year or less(much less at the very beggining) even without counting with bitcoin price increase.
What changed? processors designed to mine and mining farms. What did that allow? The 1% can play their game, and it became just one more stock that is actually rarely used as actual money.
You will not be the only one.
...yeah I stopped applying signatures to my digital art for the same reason. I tried to design it more as an Icon (similar to Albrecht Dürer). I did the same with my signature when I still worked in the traditional media. However KK is a pen name I use on the net save for a few sites like those dedicated to social/political commentary).
Yeah, I'm wracking my brain over what can be done and as I mentioned working with a group dedicated to protecting our rights to our intellectual property. Unfortunately we get nothing from piracy as we don't have gallery tours that we make a living from. We do this on the side, or on ti the case of being retired (like some of us here), for relaxation and having a creative outlet. AS I also mentioned much earlier, going the "dead tree" route is prohibitively expensive and messy to deal with if you don't have a publisher to handle printing along with all the distribution and business angles, So "Net publication" is the only way for many of us to get our work out there. I'm definitely not in this for the money, crikey at best I make "pocket money" here and there on commission work, maybe enough to do a minor system upgrade or purchase a software tool. My intent is to simply tell and illustrate stories, not write the next "NYT best seller" and most definitely not to try and get rich at this. .
Two things:
I might be anti-NFT, I'm going to let companies do whatever they want. It's currently a fad, and the data hasn't been calculated yet on the true impacts on NFTs on the environment, basically ETH is only 2% of technology pollution.
second, since it's a fad (just like Bitcoin was) it'll eventually die down and maybe, just MAYBE, they'll be better technology that will reduce the environmental impact with NFTs. But yes, it's a giant pyramid scheme that of course everyone is falling for.
Alright, could someone, please, explain in plain English, what exactly will introducing this mess to DAZ shop mean to us hobby artists who buy and use the products sold here, when the timer runs out?
I'm just gonna chime in and say that the sky isn't falling.. content is still going to be sold at Daz like normal.. nothing is changing. It's one event.. if you like that sort of thing, great.. if you don't, then that's cool too..!
Thank you, but maybe I should rephrase the question. Does the introduction of NFT to DAZ bring a threat that we may have to pay extra for each use of a product that is sold under the NFT terms? If so, will this be clearly marked in the DAZ shop? How will the licence change?
In my opinion, the license must change. With NFT, you own what you have bought, like with a physical painting. If you own a vanGogh or Picasso, you can legally sell that piece again, to whomever you choose. Or destroy it, if that is waht you like to do. NFT's claim to be the same thing in digital art. You no longer have a license to a digital product, you literally own that special copy of it, including all the rights. This needs to be reflected in the terms of use, otherwise it is just an overpriced license.
That's really not how this works.
It would also be interesting with which blockchain the NFT is craeted. There are gazillion variations of blockchains avialable. And all suffer from the same basic design fault. If you control 51% of the total hash mining power of any given blockchain, you can do quite a lot of things with it, including creation of "false" entries, or blocking transactions of correct entries. This "51 percent attack" is possible on a majority of current blockchains.
I never understand Daz's obsession of throwing good money after bad. How many of these ventures has Daz tried and failed miserably on? All of them so far. The 3d assets stores, etc.
You all have enough trouble supporting what you have, why keep throwing the good money away on this new stuff that never pans out?
We don't know what this is going to mean at Daz, so it's premature to speculate about how it might work; I would, however, be very surprised if it had anything to do with the general sale of content or how we use it. Please do bear in mind that the discussion of copyright protection is really not relevant - NFTs are not a form of copy protection, for good or ill, they are something that can be done to content and the potential for abuse is the same as with any other activity that can be performed using content.
They are something that can be done with content that's known to be bad for the planet and maintaining the blockchain NFTs rely on is part of the reason Daz's customers can't easily upgrade the equipment we employ to make use of the products Daz sells as its core business.
Considering the thread was started by someone who is labeled as a Daz employee, the thread was pinned to the top of the forum, it contains the title "Future of Digital Content", and the original post reads as an NFT 101 primer... What exactly do you think we should be taking away from it, Richard?
Which is utterly insane. Ethereum uses fifty times more energy than the credit card network, but handles a thousandth of the traffic.
In terms of how efficiently other systems do the same basic job, the number should be a blip on the order of a few percent of one percent of one percent, not whole number percentages.
I don't think it is. Unless Daz has got something insanely clever in mind that no-one else has thought of, NFTs are still an ecological nightmare that is running on a blockchain system that is contributing to many of their users not being able to get hold of the necessary hardware and, as a general system, are questionable as to whether "ownership" of an NFT is legally enforceable (given that the blockchain isn't backed by a legislative state).
Given no-one else has solved these problems yet, I think it is very valid to be sceptical that Daz has.