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
Prices seem to range from $36.91 to over $500... some of the Shudu items appear to be in an auction format, and the reserves have not been met.
I wonder how high that target price actually is? There's 9 days to hit it.
Yeah... When they started requiring acceptance of their terms before even allowing to make simple searches, I smelled a rat and stopped using their 'services'
It did take a few days before finding an alternative, but then I came to think that on the other side of our eastern border, there is a large user base... What do they use?
Found Yandex and have been happy with it. The only thing I'm missing is the higher resolution satellite images but that is lower interest than for example the far superior translator.
And... a 30 minute chat with Cameron-James Wilson appears to be $512.54... so he charges $1,025.08 per hour? Cool.
At least "Proceeds from the sales of Shudu NFTs will go to" Black Girls CODE.
That's super cool, and much needed in society today...
Interesting, that the Daz Studio single items have droped in price by 50%. Which makes them cheaper now than the bundle, wich remains full price. Looks a bit like those items have a "shelf warmer syndrome"
It would have been MUCH better if they would have made a Black Girls CODE bundle. And donating some of the net revenue to the Black Girls CODE foundation.
I'm not surprised at all, because IMHO, DAZ is going about it all wrong.
The Shudu offerings all have a conhesive theme, a proven entity, and a limited supply. It looks like there are only 10 offered of each.
The DAZ offerings have no cohesive theme and appear to be random images. The DAZ entity is not a proven entity in the market. DAZ is offering 100 of each item, possibly 200 if the bundles are their own quantity.
At the very least it is showing to people that they are a novice in the arena and are experimenting. They don't know what will sell, how many, or what the price should be. So they are splashing the market for intel.
I think I understand a little more about NFT's now, still think they're worthless and the whole thing is a scam.
The whole scheme is full of middle men and get rich quick ideas. I see this farce by Daz as a testing of the water, They sell some NFT's and give the proceeds to charity, it's all a bit of fun.
I feel they want to get in to the market of brokering. My guess is they'll introduce a service to "help" you sell NFT's of your work, with the pretense that it helps digital artists.
If you are the sort of person who does like to help artists that you think have potential then why not just donate to them or even better commision them. Cut out the greedy middle men.
If your're thinking of buying because of the charity element I'd say please don't encourage them, send you're donation directly.
The only people I see who would be interested in NFT's are the brokers and people who think they can flip them later for a profit.
DIM is updated in parallel with central, they share code. I wouldn't call progress to Central anyways, it was a beauty "mutilated" DIM the last time that I try it.
About DIM versus Connect, believe me, some times is better build a new thing than try to modify and old thing. I hate each time my boss want a new unplanned changes of paradigm on codes because the result is a complete mess of unnecessary workarounds, being better begin from zero.
I can understand that... However, sometimes its a good idea to try and get the foundation correct. Instead of endlessly taking new shots at the pitch that go no where.
If DAZ really wants to attract new customers they need to work on the user interfaces and the learning curves.
That DIM can't do something simple like "show me G8 Characters" is embarassing. Of course a new user can't make heads or tails out of things. I mean it should be common sense; show me what hair I can use, show me what wardrobe I can use. That that functionality seems alien and worthless to DAZ means that they just don't understand their customers.
That product organization standards have never been enforced in 20 years... that's just criminal if you expect new users to become regular users.
I don't even understand the displayed pricing. (Although I don't intend to buy at any price.) What does it mean when the price is one penny, but it has a high dollar amount in parentheses?
The default pricing is in ETH (0.1). The pricing following that is the current conversion. But you still have to pay in ETH.
I think the penny stands for the Ethereum price?
Oh! I see. There is no $ in front of the 0.01. There are three bars, which I am unfamiliar with. So, I suppose that means Ethereum. Thanks for the clarification.
Interesting how they are framing this first NFT as a charity effort. I can't wait to see the other charities they will be supporting each time they put an NFT in the store.
Before the Diigitals countdown timer was up, I really thought there was going to be some kind of sponsored content / collaboration with Diigitals to release more realistic and fashion-inspired characters, clothing, and animation content. I really didn't expect it to come in the form of NFT editions.
I think these 5 Shudu pieces have the most compelling "unlocks"... especially the Shudu: Heart of a Lion with the unlock of hand-painted texture map files for Shudu...
but what kind of resale value would the NFTs have after the "unlock" content is used... especially the 30-minute video call?
By the way, that's a dime, not a penny. But its not really either.
Its one tenth of an ETH.
Technical writer quirk. Having to repeatedly explain the metric system to people has made it a sore spot for me.
"Are you sure these dimensions are correct?"
Having to sit through a patronizing lecture as a reply.
"Ok, then I guess this screw is really four feet long, but weighs the same as the previous ones."
I don't know... I still prefer to buy content from here, using standard currency... I have no interest in cryptocurrency of any kind... etherium, bitcoin, dogecoin... meh.
Releasing content via NFT seems like a slippery slope toward creating scarcity for digital things, while the Daz 3D ecosystem thrives with unlimited copies sold to users under a non-exclusive software license, and published artists that make products to support those products.
The strength is in numbers of people with access to the same content, purchasing additional content to suport that content... like digital clothing, and texture sets released for that clothing.
Imagine if there were only 5 copies of Victoria 9 that were released as NFT unlocks. Only those 5 lucky owners of the edition would be able to use the base figure... and everyone else would have to use some other alternative, or hope that someone resells one of those copies... but support for that scarce figure would be close to zero. Same for clothing... or environments, props, or whatever else.
It would be... if it was a regular bundle themed to Black Girls CODE. Instead, it's being fronted by something super scummy -NFTs- and ends up coming off as a shield/deflector for any criticism of Daz pivoting to NFTs. Disgusting, imho.
The only info on the proceeds going to the charity that I can easily find is the nebulous statement: "Proceeds from the sales of Shudu NFTs will go to this powerful organization"
Exactly how much will go? They can donate a dollar in total and that would fall under "proceeds". It seems like they're trying to frame this ecological nightmare in something more palatable. I dislike when charities are mentioned/used, but not the actual details. When will the charity recieve their funds? Will it be in "hard" currency or crypto? Will the donating entity being taking the tax break for the donation?
Can someone please explain this to me, can anyone buy the rights to my art and anyones art? who do they buy the ntf from? who gains from letting other people steal my work???? is this a way to make it easier for art theives to steal art? like it is difficult now? can they steal ntf from any site? I just deleted my entire gallery from here, do I need to delete it from other places too, or can they only buy the ntf from sites like Daz? If this is what I think it is, anyone can come along, buy the rights to my work and claim credit for it and Daz are all for it..... Then I need to stop being a Dazoholic, go through some 10 step program and learn to love the other site.... If this is what I think it is then I have no respect left for Daz, I always say there is a special place in hell reserved for art thieves, and now it seams that Daz belongs to that lowlife part of humanity. Sorry, but art theives prevents me from sharing my art without a big fat watermark across it which pains me so much, more than I can say in words. The thieves are killing us artists and now it seams like Daz is helping them? Please answer me and explain this like you would to a child beacause I don't understand any of this, I'm to old for this kind of s....t
-
Metric vs Imperial, it's not like it's rocket science ( tongue firmly in cheek )
Daz is not out to steal your art. NFTs on the other hand - I can't even understand the whole concept myself and therefore cannot explain it to you, but at least the NFTs here are art created by the people looking to sell them, not from any stolen artwork. Even if I'm highly disappointed in this decision by Daz (enough to almost be done with the place), I also highly doubt they are going to steal anyones art.
Some (all?) of the proceeds of the Shudu NFTs are for Black Girls CODE. It just says "proceeds", so it's ambiguous. Anyway, something's better than nothing. There's no such commitment mentioned with the Studio stuff.
Leveraged for the animation? Who talks like that? 3D assets inspired by or used in this render? I get the "used in" part but are there are PAs who saw the render and were inspired to make something that you get when you buy the NFT or did the assets get inspired?
From what I’ve heard from other sources is that only the original creator can create the NFT (unless they choose to do otherwise) and the buyer is basically getting an autographed copy, so it’s like buying a signed print with a limited amount of copies and purchasers can resell them just like collectors can resell art they purchased.. It does not give the buyer the right to make prints, t-shirts, etc... with the art unless you grant that option. This is what I was told in VR circles. I believe you get to choose what rights the buyers get and how many copies you want purchased. Also it’s expensive to create an NFT in the first place.
Thanks for the reply!
I hope someone can explain this to me, but from what I have read so far it sounds like a way to make it easier to steal art. I hope I am wrong, because if I am right I need to stop shopping here and I really don't want that..
.
It's apparently not quite true that only the original creator can create an NFT.
This may be an extreme example, but... https://news.artnet.com/art-world/global-art-museum-nfts-1953404
In crypto-libertarian fairy land, there's a thing called a "blockchain". It's basically a massive computer file that keeps track of who mines and owns crypto-currency. To create more crypto-currency, you have to use your computer to process the blockchain, meaning it's perpetually pulling itself up by its own bootstraps. Every iteration takes longer and longer, since the blockchain keeps growing. So crypto-currency gets more and more computer processor-intensive to produce, which means people need to scoop up GPUs in order to create computer farms that process the blockchain and create more crypto-currency. That's why GPUs are nonexistent now. It's also badly accelerating climate change.
An NFT is basically an entry in the blockchain. It's like a receipt stating that you (as in, your unique ID) acknowledges the existence of a digital file. It does not give you ownership of or copyright over the file. You basically say "I acknowledge that piece of digital data exists" and that is permanently etched in the blockchain. In theory, it's supposed to empower artists by allowing them to sell "authorized" .jpgs of their art instead of just some schmuck right-clicking and saving it to their hard drive. But due to the lackluster vetting process at many sites, people who are not the owners are uploading those files and charging money for NFTs.
Again, an NFT does not confer copyright over an image. You still own the copyright. If you sell NFTs, you are basically rubber-stamping each .jpg you sell as an "authorized" digital copy, like a watermark. You can "mint" as many NFTs as you want; the extrordinarily high prices you hear about in the news are because the copyright-holders are imposing artificial scarcity on data you can easily save to your hard drive.
Daz entered a partnership with James Cameron-Wilson, the owner of Diigitals, to publish NFTs on an outside website, Opensea, as an advertising tactic to get NFT manufacturers interested in using the Daz platform. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the site.
DAZ want your money, they don't care about your artwork. If you want real change you need to stop shopping here. Simple as that...
Oh, right. I don't know a dollar from an ETH or a penny from a dime. Good thing I'm not getting involved with this NFT stuff at all. I'm obviously unqualified!
The intent behind it is to make it easier for artists to verify that work is theirs, by purchasing a unique token. But because the system is unregulated and large amounts of money are involved, bad actors can take advantage of really obvious exploits, the simplest of which is just uploading someone else's art before they can do it themselves and selling it as the "original."
Probably the only people who need to worry about it on a practical level are artists with high name recognition, because large NFT purchases are generally speculative--people are trying to buy valuable NFTs at early prices so they can sell them for exponentially more money down the line.
This is a big problem with the "move fast and break things" crowd, in that they take a near-utopian view of new technology and don't realistically consider downsides until after they've caused harm at an enormous scale.