NFT and the Future of Digital Content

kyoto kid

plasma_ring said:

margrave said:

Wonderland said:

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...

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.

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. 

...I came into this late in life, as debilitating arthritis made it extremely difficult to continue working in the traditional art media (drawing and painting) which I had been involved with pretty much all my life. My modelling skills pretty much suck small planetoids while my severely arthritic hands have lost much their grip and pressure control/sensitivity, so sculpting is out as it requires a pad and stylus. 

What I did get into is what I refer to as "meshbashing" (kitbashing existing meshes).  I've cobbled different props and sets together to create something unique and different, I've morphed the daylights out of existing figures combining them with qualities form others until they no longer resemble the base characters at all (my Leela character is a good example of that and there are times clothing fits don't work properly because of the high degree of morphing and shaping involved.. Crikey, I turned tall buxom V4 into both a 12 and 8 year old child by pushing the existing morphs to their limits.  I've worked heavily with the Geometry Editor (which can be extremely painstaking) and used primitives for creating simple items.. So it's gone far beyond "digital dress up dolls". 

I sort of look at 3D more like say, when I built scale aircraft models as a teenager.  I didn't mould and cut my own styrene shapes (that takes a a lot of expensive equipment and is somewhat dangerous without good ventilation).  The "creativity" was in how I detailed and presented a finished model, making it look like an actual miniature of the real thing which often included extreme detailing and at times a measure of "kitbashing" (which is where the term originated from).  Yeah I could have just slapped them together added a little paint as suggested in the instructions, applied the decals, glued them to the stands that came with the kits and call it a day, but what was the fun, challenge, and crativity in that?

Ascania

Sevrin said:

tombraider4ever said:

Nath said:

Wonderland said:

tombraider4ever said:

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-

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.

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

Thanks for the reply, if they can steal those masterpieces from that gallery legally, then it is as bad as I think. 

It was a hoax.

Is this a hoax too? (For those who don't want to click: artist on Twitter discovering his art is being tokenized)

plasma_ring

kyoto kid said:

plasma_ring said:

margrave said:

Wonderland said:

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...

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.

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. 

...I came into this late in life, as debilitating arthritis made it extremely difficult to continue working in the traditional art media (drawing and painting) which I had been involved with pretty much all my life. My modelling skills pretty much suck small planetoids while my severely arthritic hands have lost much their grip and pressure control/sensitivity, so sculpting is out as it requires a pad and stylus. 

What I did get into is what I refer to as "meshbashing" (kitbashing existing meshes).  I've cobbled different props and sets together to create something unique and different, I've morphed the daylights out of existing figures combining them with qualities form others until they no longer resemble the base characters at all (my Leela character is a good example of that and there are times clothing fits don't work properly because of the high degree of morphing and shaping involved.. Crikey, I turned tall buxom V4 into both a 12 and 8 year old child by pushing the existing morphs to their limits.  I've worked heavily with the Geometry Editor (which can be extremely painstaking) and used primitives for creating simple items.. So it's gone far beyond "digital dress up dolls". 

I sort of look at 3D more like say, when I built scale aircraft models as a teenager.  I didn't mould and cut my own styrene shapes (that takes a a lot of expensive equipment and is somewhat dangerous without good ventilation).  The "creativity" was in how I detailed and presented a finished model, making it look like an actual miniature of the real thing which often included extreme detailing and at times a measure of "kitbashing" (which is where the term originated from).  Yeah I could have just slapped them together added a little paint as suggested in the instructions, applied the decals, glued them to the stands that came with the kits and call it a day, but what was the fun, challenge, and crativity in that?

This is pretty much how I feel about it and I think a lot of weird art world hangups come from people valuing the blood, sweat, and tears the work represents more than the work itself (which is kind of in line with NFTs, tbh). I've seen commissioners get upset at skilled artists because they felt disrespected by how quickly work was finished--they imagine the artist just jotted it off and they didn't get their money's worth, even if the finished piece is beautiful. When the first Aquaman poster showed up, people went wild treating the presence of an identifiable stock photo shark as a massive scandal, because I guess they thought graphic artists went out and rented their own sharks?

I do see some people interact with Daz as sort of a digital dollhouse, and I think that's great on its own. I do that sometimes, where I just want to tinker with my figures and take cute pics of them, and I like Daz because it accommodates both. 

MelissaGT

Sevrin said:

melissastjames said:

Phoenix1966 said:

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?

The charity-touting concerns me as well. I'd much rather donate to the charity directly, especially when in this case, helping Diigitals is helping a white guy continue to accumulate wealth built with fake diversity. 

I don't believe that's a fair representation.  If you listen to his collaborators, they're more than cool with working with Cameron, and quite proud to be working on his projects.  As a white dude, I don't feel it's my place to be indignant on their behalf.

The Diigitals Muses // Alexandrah

Diigitals is the first big name to really pioneer the concept of digital models/supermodels...it's a new horizon, and likely will be an expanding horizon, and there is the potential for real women of color to be passed up or passed over in favor of a 3D model if that means a clothing designer could save money in doing so. It may not have happened this time with Shudu (even though she was mis-represented as being a real person for quite a while which must not have felt good at all for the people who saw her and looked up to her as a role model when they found out she wasn't real)...but there is the potential this whole concept of digital fashion models to turn into a good thing, or a very bad one. 

margrave

melissastjames said:

Diigitals is the first big name to really pioneer the concept of digital models/supermodels...it's a new horizon, and likely will be an expanding horizon, and there is the potential for real women of color to be passed up or passed over in favor of a 3D model if that means a clothing designer could save money in doing so. It may not have happened this time with Shudu (even though she was mis-represented as being a real person for quite a while which must not have felt good at all for the people who saw her and looked up to her as a role model when they found out she wasn't real)...but there is the potential this whole concept of digital fashion models to be a good thing, or a very bad one. 

That's basically just the whole "robots are taking our jobs!" argument all over again, isn't it? The same one that's been raging for over a century now? 

MelissaGT

margrave said:

melissastjames said:

Diigitals is the first big name to really pioneer the concept of digital models/supermodels...it's a new horizon, and likely will be an expanding horizon, and there is the potential for real women of color to be passed up or passed over in favor of a 3D model if that means a clothing designer could save money in doing so. It may not have happened this time with Shudu (even though she was mis-represented as being a real person for quite a while which must not have felt good at all for the people who saw her and looked up to her as a role model when they found out she wasn't real)...but there is the potential this whole concept of digital fashion models to be a good thing, or a very bad one. 

That's basically just the whole "robots are taking our jobs!" argument all over again, isn't it? The same one that's been raging for over a century now? 

Except no? The little girl doesn't grow up admiring the robot and looking up to it as a role model and saying "that robot looks like me...so I can do what it does!"

I suppose then we could turn around and say, we'll then we should push the charity Black Girls CODE so they could be the ones designing and fixing the robots. Yes...awesome...a thousand times yes. But again, that's why I'm going to donate directly to them. And the argument goes in circles...

Richard Haseltine

tombraider4ever said:

From this article about this: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/30/tech/nft-hacking-theft-environment-concerns/index.html :

"anyone can claim a digital photo or painting as their own by attaching a token to it, even if they didn't create it. And while all transactions on the blockchain are recorded publicly in an immutable digital ledger, there is no requirement that people attach their real names or identities to those transactions, which makes it much harder to get recourse if your work is stolen or compromised.

"Generally speaking, when you're trying to enforce any legal right, not just an IP right, you need to know who to enforce against," said Rebecca Silverhart, an intellectual property lawyer at Toronto-based law firm Heer Law. "The primary issue with blockchain is that many users are anonymous, if not all, or mostly everyone is anonymous, and so to be able to actually enforce against any right is very difficult.". This is what Daz is partnering with or what ever deal they have with them. Someone invented a new way to steal art. Obviously some artists will be able to sell their this way and that is good, but it is at the cost of other artists getting their art stolen and sold in a shiny new way!   I can't sell my art as I make fanart but somehow the theives have no problems with that, and I am very scared that this will make more people steal my art. LEGALLY! 

It would not be legally, and they are already capable of stealing your art if they can take it and use it as a basis for an NFT. If they redistribute your art then theya re breaking copyright law, an NFT does not change that in any way.

tombraider4ever

Richard Haseltine said:

tombraider4ever said:

From this article about this: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/30/tech/nft-hacking-theft-environment-concerns/index.html :

"anyone can claim a digital photo or painting as their own by attaching a token to it, even if they didn't create it. And while all transactions on the blockchain are recorded publicly in an immutable digital ledger, there is no requirement that people attach their real names or identities to those transactions, which makes it much harder to get recourse if your work is stolen or compromised.

"Generally speaking, when you're trying to enforce any legal right, not just an IP right, you need to know who to enforce against," said Rebecca Silverhart, an intellectual property lawyer at Toronto-based law firm Heer Law. "The primary issue with blockchain is that many users are anonymous, if not all, or mostly everyone is anonymous, and so to be able to actually enforce against any right is very difficult.". This is what Daz is partnering with or what ever deal they have with them. Someone invented a new way to steal art.   I can't sell my art as I make fanart but somehow the theives have no problems with that, and I am very scared that this will make more people steal my art. LEGALLY! 

It would not be legally, and they are already capable of stealing your art if they can take it and use it as a basis for an NFT. If they redistribute your art then theya re breaking copyright law, an NFT does not change that in any way.

But anyone can create a NTF, it doesn't have to be the artist, and they can then sell the NTF or token or whatever it is, or is it not supposed to work that way? either way, legal or not, if this NTF thing can be missused it WILL BE, we all know that. The article I linked to tells about an artists who found out about his work sold this way without his concent, and then there is that gallery having the artwork sold as NTF, so it has already happned, and will again. And cryptocurrency is not environment friendly, another reason to dislike this. I watermark all my work now, but watermarks can be removed through watermark removal software or any of the watermark removal video tutorials , and then stolen and sold. So I do what I have to protect my work and it still gets stolen. And now there is a new way to do it. As I said: Obviously some artists will be able to sell their this way and that is good, but it is at the cost of other artists getting their art stolen and sold in a shiny new way! . Anyone can claim a digital photo or painting as their own by attaching a token to it, even if they didn't create it. And then they sell as NTF. I'm sure it's meant as the artist makes the token or whatever it is called, but without any proof of creation demanded anyone can do it. I don't understand this, but everything I read about this tells me that I am right, this have and will be missused. 

MelissaGT

Richard Haseltine said:

tombraider4ever said:

From this article about this: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/30/tech/nft-hacking-theft-environment-concerns/index.html :

"anyone can claim a digital photo or painting as their own by attaching a token to it, even if they didn't create it. And while all transactions on the blockchain are recorded publicly in an immutable digital ledger, there is no requirement that people attach their real names or identities to those transactions, which makes it much harder to get recourse if your work is stolen or compromised.

"Generally speaking, when you're trying to enforce any legal right, not just an IP right, you need to know who to enforce against," said Rebecca Silverhart, an intellectual property lawyer at Toronto-based law firm Heer Law. "The primary issue with blockchain is that many users are anonymous, if not all, or mostly everyone is anonymous, and so to be able to actually enforce against any right is very difficult.". This is what Daz is partnering with or what ever deal they have with them. Someone invented a new way to steal art. Obviously some artists will be able to sell their this way and that is good, but it is at the cost of other artists getting their art stolen and sold in a shiny new way!   I can't sell my art as I make fanart but somehow the theives have no problems with that, and I am very scared that this will make more people steal my art. LEGALLY! 

It would not be legally, and they are already capable of stealing your art if they can take it and use it as a basis for an NFT. If they redistribute your art then theya re breaking copyright law, an NFT does not change that in any way.

It kinda does change that, because if the copyright infringement is taking place in the form of an NFT, the management system of the "NFT Universe" i.e. the sheer anonymity of it could very well make it impossible to locate and/or proscecute the offender. 

margrave

melissastjames said:

margrave said:

melissastjames said:

Diigitals is the first big name to really pioneer the concept of digital models/supermodels...it's a new horizon, and likely will be an expanding horizon, and there is the potential for real women of color to be passed up or passed over in favor of a 3D model if that means a clothing designer could save money in doing so. It may not have happened this time with Shudu (even though she was mis-represented as being a real person for quite a while which must not have felt good at all for the people who saw her and looked up to her as a role model when they found out she wasn't real)...but there is the potential this whole concept of digital fashion models to be a good thing, or a very bad one. 

That's basically just the whole "robots are taking our jobs!" argument all over again, isn't it? The same one that's been raging for over a century now? 

Except no? The little girl doesn't grow up admiring the robot and looking up to it as a role model and saying "that robot looks like me...so I can do what it does!"

I suppose then we could turn around and say, we'll then we should push the charity Black Girls CODE so they could be the ones designing and fixing the robots. Yes...awesome...a thousand times yes. But again, that's why I'm going to donate directly to them. And the argument goes in circles...

Unless I've misread it, your post was about real-life models being "passed up or passed over" in favor of digital models. In other words, to lose their jobs.

Whether children should have role models is a separate issue--albeit one that's often invoked by people who want to keep their jobs as said role models.

tombraider4ever

melissastjames said:

Richard Haseltine said:

tombraider4ever said:

From this article about this: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/30/tech/nft-hacking-theft-environment-concerns/index.html :

"anyone can claim a digital photo or painting as their own by attaching a token to it, even if they didn't create it. And while all transactions on the blockchain are recorded publicly in an immutable digital ledger, there is no requirement that people attach their real names or identities to those transactions, which makes it much harder to get recourse if your work is stolen or compromised.

"Generally speaking, when you're trying to enforce any legal right, not just an IP right, you need to know who to enforce against," said Rebecca Silverhart, an intellectual property lawyer at Toronto-based law firm Heer Law. "The primary issue with blockchain is that many users are anonymous, if not all, or mostly everyone is anonymous, and so to be able to actually enforce against any right is very difficult.". This is what Daz is partnering with or what ever deal they have with them. Someone invented a new way to steal art. Obviously some artists will be able to sell their this way and that is good, but it is at the cost of other artists getting their art stolen and sold in a shiny new way!   I can't sell my art as I make fanart but somehow the theives have no problems with that, and I am very scared that this will make more people steal my art. LEGALLY! 

It would not be legally, and they are already capable of stealing your art if they can take it and use it as a basis for an NFT. If they redistribute your art then theya re breaking copyright law, an NFT does not change that in any way.

It kinda does change that, because if the copyright infringement is taking place in the form of an NFT, the management system of the "NFT Universe" i.e. the sheer anonymity of it could very well make it impossible to locate and/or proscecute the offender. 

Exactly, the NTF can be created anonymously, they don't have to give their name so it is not possbile to proscecute the offender, a name is needed for that. Atleast that is from the article I linked to, if that is correct then there is no way to proscecute if someone makes the token witht my art anonymously. And any thief with half a brain will not give their name if not needed .

Torquinox

Here's a little more fuel for the fire: https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3

It's a long article with a negative conclusion on the factors involved in blockchain as money and cryptoart. It's polemical and seems well-reasoned.

BlueFingers

I

Pretty interesting piece for those who are interested.

BlueFingers

Torquinox said:

Here's a little more fuel for the fire: https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3

It's a long article with a negative conclusion on the factors involved in blockchain as money and cryptoart. It's polemical and seems well-reasoned.

Ah, you beat me to it. 

Ron Knights

This NFT is nonsense to me. I come to DAZ to buy content, "make art," and mingle with fellow artists. I have no interest in buying virtual art, or crypto-currency. I won't waste any more of my physical or emotional energy.

I'm out of this thread.

Torquinox

BlueFingers said:

Torquinox said:

Here's a little more fuel for the fire: https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3

It's a long article with a negative conclusion on the factors involved in blockchain as money and cryptoart. It's polemical and seems well-reasoned.

Ah, you beat me to it. 

But you got the cool billboard 

BlueFingers

I just dawned on me, I started with Daz Studio last December as it is a nice hobby not affected by COVID lockdowns etc., and I really really enjoy it.

But I really, genuinely, hate the idea that the money I spent will be invested in NFT development because of the enviromental costs.

Ugh, am I the only one with this dillema? I am having a hard time justifying it for myself, and since I am not too invested yet...

IceCrMn

Me:"I can't get the GPUs I need for iray rendering in Studio because of the crypto-miners."
Daz:"Would you like to buy some crypto-tokens with crypto-currency?"
Me:"No thank you.I don't think we are communicating effectively."

I swear, I give up.
Now there's even more reasons for the crypto-miners to bot cards off the only suppliers I have access to.

This has hurtled so far past ridiculous at this point that I just give up.

SnowSultan

One thing we should keep in mind though is while there are art thieves out there, there's also brutal internet mob justice. I read something a while back where someone tried to sell a creative work that wasn't his (might have been a story, don't quite remember). Once word got out through Twitter that it was created by a different person and he was trying to profit from their work, he was doxxed, hounded, and even threatened until the sale was canceled and the original creator was recognized. Mob justice isn't the ideal way to solve problems, but it does work. I think if we recognize one of our fellow artists' works being sold as an NFT and post links to the original work in NFT and cryptoart-related forums, quite a few of those problems will solve themselves too. We can watch out for each other as vigilantly as they can try to steal our stuff.

I'd still like to learn about what would be required on an artist's end to make their own art available as an NFT. There's too much Chicken Little panicking going on in discussions, and I'm more interested now in watching what some of the more talented artists decide to do in time. We also ought to stop worrying about silliness like DAZ selling our artwork on the dark web while we sleep or that there will be a limited number of copies of a PA's products from now on.

Richard Haseltine

BlueFingers said:

I just dawned on me, I started with Daz Studio last December as it is a nice hobby not affected by COVID lockdowns etc., and I really really enjoy it.

But I really, genuinely, hate the idea that the money I spent will be invested in NFT development because of the enviromental costs.

Ugh, am I the only one with this dillema? I am having a hard time justifying it for myself, and since I am not too invested yet...

I don't think there's any suggestion that Daz is financing NFT development - indeed, I doubt they will keep offering NFTs unless they make a net contribution to income (and so fund DS and so on).

Richard Haseltine

IceCrMn said:

Me:"I can't get the GPUs I need for iray rendering in Studio because of the crypto-miners."
Daz:"Would you like to buy some crypto-tokens with crypto-currency?"
Me:"No thank you.I don't think we are communicating effectively."

I swear, I give up.
Now there's even more reasons for the crypto-miners to bot cards off the only suppliers I have access to.

This has hurtled so far past ridiculous at this point that I just give up.

From all I've seen and read there is a general shortage of many electorinic components. Miners may be an additional factor in GPUs, but there is more than enough underlying demand to soak up the supply anyway.

Richard Haseltine

tombraider4ever said:

melissastjames said:

Richard Haseltine said:

tombraider4ever said:

From this article about this: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/30/tech/nft-hacking-theft-environment-concerns/index.html :

"anyone can claim a digital photo or painting as their own by attaching a token to it, even if they didn't create it. And while all transactions on the blockchain are recorded publicly in an immutable digital ledger, there is no requirement that people attach their real names or identities to those transactions, which makes it much harder to get recourse if your work is stolen or compromised.

"Generally speaking, when you're trying to enforce any legal right, not just an IP right, you need to know who to enforce against," said Rebecca Silverhart, an intellectual property lawyer at Toronto-based law firm Heer Law. "The primary issue with blockchain is that many users are anonymous, if not all, or mostly everyone is anonymous, and so to be able to actually enforce against any right is very difficult.". This is what Daz is partnering with or what ever deal they have with them. Someone invented a new way to steal art. Obviously some artists will be able to sell their this way and that is good, but it is at the cost of other artists getting their art stolen and sold in a shiny new way!   I can't sell my art as I make fanart but somehow the theives have no problems with that, and I am very scared that this will make more people steal my art. LEGALLY! 

It would not be legally, and they are already capable of stealing your art if they can take it and use it as a basis for an NFT. If they redistribute your art then theya re breaking copyright law, an NFT does not change that in any way.

It kinda does change that, because if the copyright infringement is taking place in the form of an NFT, the management system of the "NFT Universe" i.e. the sheer anonymity of it could very well make it impossible to locate and/or proscecute the offender. 

Exactly, the NTF can be created anonymously, they don't have to give their name so it is not possbile to proscecute the offender, a name is needed for that. Atleast that is from the article I linked to, if that is correct then there is no way to proscecute if someone makes the token witht my art anonymously. And any thief with half a brain will not give their name if not needed .

Sadly that is true generally - you can file a DMCA to get the ingfringing item taken down, but that doesn't help to identify the infringer unless they file a counter notice. Only if the infringer iss elling in their own right would you have a way to prosecute, and that would apply to NFTs too.

Jason Galterio

Way back in the analog days, when I would submit manuscripts and such, you were highly recommended to trademark or somehow copyright your material. That way you would have proof that you own a dated copy of said document the predates anything a less than scrupulous agent or submission department might have.

If you were doing a lot of these, then it was cost prohibitive to register everything.

So a lo-tech solution was to make a copy of your document, either printing out an extra one, or photocopying the typed one. Then mailing it to yourself through USPS. When you received the sealed letter back, you left it sealed and put it aside. If you were really paranoid, you would address and stamp the letter on the "wrong side." This way all of the marks and addresses would go across the seal of the envelope.

The point of all of this...  Maybe someone could devise and invest in a "hi tech version of the lo tech solution." Maybe a server or something where users could upload their work files and/or finished images. Lock the files and have proof that the files existed in that location as of X date and have not been modified.

AlmightyQUEST

BlueFingers said:

I just dawned on me, I started with Daz Studio last December as it is a nice hobby not affected by COVID lockdowns etc., and I really really enjoy it.

But I really, genuinely, hate the idea that the money I spent will be invested in NFT development because of the enviromental costs.

Ugh, am I the only one with this dillema? I am having a hard time justifying it for myself, and since I am not too invested yet...

You are not the only one. I don't think it will change the way that DAZ products are sold in the store, or change how the gallery works, or any of the many concerns in line with these that have come up. This is a side project that DAZ is involved in that affects me as much as the 3D printing partnership did. However, unlike with the other partnerships, I have serious concerns with DAZ being involved in this venture, and giving it support and legitimacy the way they are. Maybe this will change quickly and they will backtrack like other companies have, but these sort of decisions impact if I want to do business with a company. It's one person, so it may not make a difference to them, but I can only speak for myself.

SnowSultan

Jason Galterio said:

So a lo-tech solution was to make a copy of your document, either printing out an extra one, or photocopying the typed one. Then mailing it to yourself through USPS. When you received the sealed letter back, you left it sealed and put it aside. If you were really paranoid, you would address and stamp the letter on the "wrong side." This way all of the marks and addresses would go across the seal of the envelope.

I actually had to do that in the process of copyrighting a magazine and trademarked logo I made when I first started using graphics programs. A long time ago.  :)

It would be nice if we had some sort of a system or even if DAZ could back us up if an egregious violation was taking place. Like I said though, I think if we showed the public enough evidence that we were the owner (like the first posting in our own gallery, on dA, or here, or a wireframe of the 3D scene), the internet would handle the rest.

Richard Haseltine

Jason Galterio said:

Way back in the analog days, when I would submit manuscripts and such, you were highly recommended to trademark or somehow copyright your material. That way you would have proof that you own a dated copy of said document the predates anything a less than scrupulous agent or submission department might have.

If you were doing a lot of these, then it was cost prohibitive to register everything.

So a lo-tech solution was to make a copy of your document, either printing out an extra one, or photocopying the typed one. Then mailing it to yourself through USPS. When you received the sealed letter back, you left it sealed and put it aside. If you were really paranoid, you would address and stamp the letter on the "wrong side." This way all of the marks and addresses would go across the seal of the envelope.

The point of all of this...  Maybe someone could devise and invest in a "hi tech version of the lo tech solution." Maybe a server or something where users could upload their work files and/or finished images. Lock the files and have proof that the files existed in that location as of X date and have not been modified.

As far as I am aware this never worked, certainly not like that: how would you prove the package wasn't posted empty, then filled and closed at a later date? The version I saw was to put a stamp across each closure of the envelope and have those franked, with the date clearly visible, so that it would be impossible to open the envelope without breaking the franking - however, I don't know if even that was successfully used in a court.

margrave

Jason Galterio said:

Way back in the analog days, when I would submit manuscripts and such, you were highly recommended to trademark or somehow copyright your material. That way you would have proof that you own a dated copy of said document the predates anything a less than scrupulous agent or submission department might have.

If you were doing a lot of these, then it was cost prohibitive to register everything.

So a lo-tech solution was to make a copy of your document, either printing out an extra one, or photocopying the typed one. Then mailing it to yourself through USPS. When you received the sealed letter back, you left it sealed and put it aside. If you were really paranoid, you would address and stamp the letter on the "wrong side." This way all of the marks and addresses would go across the seal of the envelope.

The point of all of this...  Maybe someone could devise and invest in a "hi tech version of the lo tech solution." Maybe a server or something where users could upload their work files and/or finished images. Lock the files and have proof that the files existed in that location as of X date and have not been modified.

Ironically, you just described what NFTs do. One blockchain cataloguing when every single NFT was created, by who, and to whom it was sold.

MelissaGT

Torquinox said:

Here's a little more fuel for the fire: https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3

It's a long article with a negative conclusion on the factors involved in blockchain as money and cryptoart. It's polemical and seems well-reasoned.

This part  right here - 

Cryptoart offers no intellectual property protection and there is no regulatory structure in place to keep copyrighted materials from being minted into and sold as NFTs, with or without the consent of the creator or copyright holder. Once an NFT is minted, there is no way to remove it from the blockchain or secondary market. 

Jason Galterio

Richard Haseltine said:

Jason Galterio said:

Way back in the analog days, when I would submit manuscripts and such, you were highly recommended to trademark or somehow copyright your material. That way you would have proof that you own a dated copy of said document the predates anything a less than scrupulous agent or submission department might have.

If you were doing a lot of these, then it was cost prohibitive to register everything.

So a lo-tech solution was to make a copy of your document, either printing out an extra one, or photocopying the typed one. Then mailing it to yourself through USPS. When you received the sealed letter back, you left it sealed and put it aside. If you were really paranoid, you would address and stamp the letter on the "wrong side." This way all of the marks and addresses would go across the seal of the envelope.

The point of all of this...  Maybe someone could devise and invest in a "hi tech version of the lo tech solution." Maybe a server or something where users could upload their work files and/or finished images. Lock the files and have proof that the files existed in that location as of X date and have not been modified.

As far as I am aware this never worked, certainly not like that: how would you prove the package wasn't posted empty, then filled and closed at a later date? The version I saw was to put a stamp across each closure of the envelope and have those franked, with the date clearly visible, so that it would be impossible to open the envelope without breaking the franking - however, I don't know if even that was successfully used in a court.

What you are describing is exactly what I described in addressing the enevelope on the "wrong side." I.e. across the seal. So that the federal stamp and the postage stamp would have to cross the seal.

No idea if it was ever used in court, there are very few cases published about idea theft before the internet.

BlueFingers

AlmightyQUEST said:

BlueFingers said:

I just dawned on me, I started with Daz Studio last December as it is a nice hobby not affected by COVID lockdowns etc., and I really really enjoy it.

But I really, genuinely, hate the idea that the money I spent will be invested in NFT development because of the enviromental costs.

Ugh, am I the only one with this dillema? I am having a hard time justifying it for myself, and since I am not too invested yet...

You are not the only one. I don't think it will change the way that DAZ products are sold in the store, or change how the gallery works, or any of the many concerns in line with these that have come up. This is a side project that DAZ is involved in that affects me as much as the 3D printing partnership did. However, unlike with the other partnerships, I have serious concerns with DAZ being involved in this venture, and giving it support and legitimacy the way they are. Maybe this will change quickly and they will backtrack like other companies have, but these sort of decisions impact if I want to do business with a company. It's one person, so it may not make a difference to them, but I can only speak for myself.

 Yes, I trust Daz will respect the works in the gallery, and the theoretical idea of NFTs  is not something I am opposed to. And a side of the whole art-theft thing, just the use of the resource heavy Ethereum blockchain really bothers me.