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
The fact that the footprint is smaller than rendering is not what's important. If we go by that logic, nothing but the single largest producer of CO2 could be considered liable, which would be utterly unsustainable. As the saying goes, no raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
The concern is that the footprint is unnecessarily large for the function it actually fulfils, regardless of what that function is. Quite aside from arguments about whether artificially creating digital scarcity is a good thing, there are other ways to create and establish it.
You understand it perfectly then.
I don't see the point of NFTs, so please don't misunderstand me. I am not supporting them.
But from everything I've read, you would not have to pay royalties to someone because they own an NFT of a digital model that you happen to use. The royalties are only paid for the sale of that copy of that model, not every copy of that model. So if someone makes an NFT of Victoria 8, and you use your own Victoria 8 that's not NFT, you do not have to pay royalties. I don't think you'd have to pay royalties for using an NFT Victoria that you own either. Just the initial purchase price. Royalties would ~only~ come into play if you sell ownership of the NFT, when a portion of the sale price would go to the original creator.
You get a string of numbers you can print out on pieces of paper and then you can take those pieces of paper and roll around on them in ecstasy, or whatever
tulips.
...it can also happen with an accurate "likeness".
For example back to that "editorial use" clause on many models sold at a certain pro 3D site I mentioned earlier. This is placed on models that involve a known "brand name" and/or is an exact fiathful reproduction of a trademarked product such as a Zamboni™, Steinway™ piano, or bottle of Coca Cola™. To use these meshes, even in 2D renderings for other than an educational or journalistic purpose, such as a commercial work like say, a graphic novel, you have to request permission from the company (not the model creator) that owns the logo and name which may or may not involve royalties or an agreement that involves a fee. In film and television this is occasionally waived as it is considered "free advertising" (also known as "product placement").as long as the item is shown in an neutral or positive light.
Many freebies of such items will usually have the "not for commercial use" tag on them
I have never seen such a large scale acrimonious response to a decision by Daz inc.
Nor have I ever seen Moderator Richard make such a disparaging/condescending remark
about the still render Portait/Pinup renders made by many users/BUYERS of Daz's most popular product (the Genesis females)
I believe that "money" serves two purposes.
1)to store value for exchange (wether intrinsic or fiat/agreed upon)
2)And to expose what people really think/feel about you.
This thread is truly illuminating regarding the latter.
So, I can legally start selling something I don't own?
NFTs were explained in a rap parody by SNL last night.
That would mean learning from history. No one did, ever. Unless you get a hard hit in the face... But every customer has the opportunity to exercise the most powerfil form of voting: use your wallet. My wallet is refusing to buy in to any of these Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin, Etherum, NFT's, you name it.
No.
No. I gave a snarky description of a small sub-set of renderers, not a general comment on or description of the broad user-base (or even the braod erotica-creating user-base). The whole point of the phrase was to make it a limited field.
It was an ill-chosen thing to say. Your snark may make you feel cool, but it mostly just makes you look bad.
DAZ has one view of NFT, alot of us have a different view of NFT, and Richard has to try and moderate the situation regardless of his own personal views on the subject. He has also pointed out that we don't know exactly what the announcement will be tonight/tomorow.
Lets not break out the torches and pitchforks quite yet, lol. Richard has done a great job for several years. Please considder that, if you are upset with him currently. Also, Richard, it's obvious feelings are running high right now, so please take that into consideration.
I'd already decided that my main point was either wrong or misunderstood, and I don't know which, so wasn't planning to belabour the point - I just wanted to address a separate misunderstanding of the post, apparently again without much success.
It happens to all of us from time to time. I have caught myself vigorously stuffing both feet in my mouth at times, lol.
edit: With all the different cultures present in the forums, it is easy to misunderstand what someone means. As an example, I would be willing to bet that someone will look at my joke and ask what it means, because they are not familiar with the expression to put your foot in your mouth.
Back to the subject at hand.
Priceless NFT Artwork Vandalized With Spray Paint Tool
...
Oh, the humanity!
...
Ah, yes... The Onion
And yet, a story like that in the art world is just strange enough to be plausible.
Now, that is a Masterpiece!
This should be ringing enormous alarm bells at Daz HQ. ArtStation is such a massive part of the online art world that they could've easily gone ahead with it and probably not suffered at all. Daz does not have a significant footprint even though it's widely used. If I ask a virtual room full of digital artists whether they're more familiar with Clip Studio Paint's 3D pose doll features or Daz Studio's entire character creation suite, the majority are probably going to say, "What's Daz?" If the company does not want the answer to always have "supported NFTs" somewhere in there--when young artists view this as an ethical issue and feel very strongly about software developers taking advantage of their customers--it needs to back away. This is the advice I would give my own employer as a communications specialist.
I want to stress that the company is taking a political and cultural stance by doing this, even if that's not their intent. It will always be on the list of brands that joined the gold rush and put out excited, flashy promotions about it in the face of people's valid concerns.
If NFTs are really the future of digital art and aren't going to collapse spectacularly, there is absolutely no harm in waiting and watching for a while. Seeing how things shake out a few months down the road would put them in a better position to talk about how it works, and it would give the system an opportunity to adjust to those concerns and possibly find ways to mitigate them. Even if the community here represents a small part of the overall userbase, they are the main source of information, documentation, and discussion; if Daz blows up suddenly among influencers or something that will owe far more to community-maintained resources than to being on point with trends.
Well, this is interesting. This thread is no longer stickied.
At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I would just like to applaud your use of the word "meretricious". I just really like the word and feel it doesn't get used nearly enough.
Also, and more seriously, I do appreciate the job you and the other forum mods do in terms of resolving issues, providing information, and keeping discussions reasonably civil and on track. Moderation can be a thankless task and it's not always easy to do it well.
I still don't understand what they are. Like, is there an actual piece of artwork involved? How would that change my interaction with Joe Customer ordering a commission for their book cover or wanting to commission me for a piece of fanart? They give me $$$ in exchange for my labor in creating a piece of artwork they've commissioned. I get money, and they get the artwork (I give them access to download the full-sized .png from Mega). I don't understand how that can be digitized into something that doesn't exist. They are saving a copy of the finished piece that nobody else has access to, short of myself (the artist), but they can do whatever they want with their copy...save it, delete it, print it and hang it on a wall...anything they want short of claiming it to be their own work. My head hurts. :(
I don't want to keep dumping on NFTs, but this article makes interesting reading.
Short summary: the digital item pointed to by an NFT can disappear, some NFTs use emerging standards that may not be supported by all gateways, and some exchanges even sell NFTs before they are minted to keep costs down.
Even shorter summary: caveat emptor.
Possibly useful analogy: imagine you have a painting (digital artwork) and a certificate of ownership (NFT). If someone sets fire to the painting (takes the digital artwork offline), you still have the certificate of ownership (NFT), it just doesn't really relate to anything.
I assume someone is going to start offering "perpetual" hosting for your NFT-linked digital artworks, rather like places that rent climate-controlled storage for your physical art. There'd need to be some mechanism for transferring the artwork from its original location (as encoded in the NFT) to the storage location, but I'm sure that adding a kind of digital codicil to an NFT to record the "relocation" is just the kind of thing that the blockchain and Ethereum are good for.
*BOOMER ALERT*
I heard it said last night crypto is everything you don't understand about money combined with everything you don't understand about computers.
I couldn't agree more.
It all sound like the emperors new clothes to me. But it wasn't too long ago that we all used physical cash pretty much exclusively, although I do get that electronic payments are still backed by something.
I might be compleately missing the point but it all seems worthless. I'm sure in a few years time the next gens will laugh at my naivety, just as we do with Alan Sugar's disgust that he was expected to pay Microsoft for an OS on his 8 bit micros.
I was born in 1981 and I still don't get it. The more I try to understand it, the more my head hurts.