NFT and the Future of Digital Content

Sera

Well, and I'm just spit balling here, proof of purchase is a thing we have been using for a long time. We have all sorts of receipts. I think this may be a proof of purchase that's harder to fake because of the way it's made. Iirc lots of computers participate in making a token and they each have some sort of record of it. As a tool, this could make it valuable. Since it's new, having one of the firsts of it's kind could be collectable as well. It may help to legitimize digital art by allowing someone to make a one of kind file. But let's not kid ourselves, even if all that were correct, it's still ALSO a controversial fad where people are paying ridiculous prices for what will probably be of little interest to the vast majority of society later on. Only a few people will want to collect early NFTs and most of this stuff won't be desirable to anyone.

Torquinox

bytescapes said:

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.

Interesting article, more food for the idea that NFTs are a big waste of resources.

Sevrin

melissastjames said:

droidy001 said:

*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.  

Alice: “There’s no use trying, one can’t believe impossible things.”

Queen: “I daresay you haven’t had much practice, when I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

MeneerWolfman

melissastjames said:

 

I was born in 1981 and I still don't get it. The more I try to understand it, the more my head hurts.  

Here's two ways of thinking about it that might be easier to understand.

Alex Ross (the artist) sells 9 x 12 print copies of his painted artwork that come with a signed letter of authenticty for about $2,000. Now, if you go to his twitter, you'll see that image for free. If you buy one of his artbooks he releases, you'll see the same image in there along with many other pieces of his art for $50. Heck, chances are probably high that Marvel or DC commissioned him to make the original piece, so you can buy an issue of the X-Men with the same piece of art on the coevr for $4. And probably, you'll also see it as a 22 x 48 poster at your comic shop for $15 in a year or two.

The only real difference between the $2,000 print copy with the letter of authenticity and the other means of buying that image is the format it came in and that letter of authenticity. Do you own the real artwork that Alex Ross painted? No. Is your image any different that the one posted on twitter, in the collected artbook, comic book cover, or poster? No. What's the only real main difference? You bought the image from Alex who gave you a letter of authenticity to justify his enormous price difference for essentially a high quality color laser print. And maybe later on if you try to sell, it will be worth more because you can show the perspective buyer that he owns #245 of a limited edition print.

Now then, replace the phrase "9 x 12 prints of his artwork" with "Digital image with no physical copy", and then replace "signed letter of authenticity" with "Non-Fungible Token".

If the idea of spending $2,000 for a 9 x 12 print because it has a tiny piece of paper to vouch that it's an authentic print copy of piece of original art sounds dumbs to you, you're gonna feel the same way about NFT.

 

Or a simpler way to put it since we're the same age: It's the digital equivalent of buying a collectible from the Franklin Mint, and just as worthless.

droidy001

I'm trying here. From what I understand an nft identifies something as being legit. So I create an asset or piece of digital art, the nft says this is the original. I sell the nft but the buyer can not receive the original unless the physical computer containing it (or at least storage medium) is also transfered. All sounds like BS from the something for nothing brigade.

Sera

bytescapes said:

I don't want to keep dumping on NFTs, but this article makes interesting reading.

Jesus. At least you got to keep the beanie baby.

bytescapes

melissastjames said:

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. :(

You can think of an NFT as being like a certificate of ownership.

If you made an artwork on commission for Joe Customer, and suppose that you delivered a limited-edition print instead of a PNG, you might give them -- in addition to the print -- a signed certificate saying "I, melissastjames, created this artwork for Joe Customer." That certificate could also be useful down the line when you are fabulously famous and successful and everyone is scrambling to buy your art, because Joe Customer (or his heirs) could pull out the certificate and use it to establish what's known in the art world as "provenance".

The NFT says "Joe Customer is the rightful owner of the (completely immaterial) digital artwork X, because Joe Customer paid this much money for it on such and such a date." The NFT isn't the artwork -- that's a pile of pixels on a server somewhere. But the NFT records Joe Customer as the owner.

Where it gets weird is that generally speaking there's nothing to stop someone who hasn't bought an NFT from downloading that pile of pixels to their own hard drive. Jo RandomPerson may still be able to enjoy the artwork (use it as her desktop background, print it out and hang it on her wall etc.), but she doesn't own it (whatever own means in this case). In essence, Joe Customer has paid money for the right to say "That's mine."

Because we're used to buying and selling things that are either physical -- a painting -- or useful -- an exclusive right, such as a patent, or the right to publish something -- a lot of people are having trouble getting their heads around the idea of buying and selling something that is neither.

MelissaGT

certaintree38 said:

Well, and I'm just spit balling here, proof of purchase is a thing we have been using for a long time. We have all sorts of receipts. I think this may be a proof of purchase that's harder to fake because of the way it's made. Iirc lots of computers participate in making a token and they each have some sort of record of it. As a tool, this could make it valuable. Since it's new, having one of the firsts of it's kind could be collectable as well. It may help to legitimize digital art by allowing someone to make a one of kind file. But let's not kid ourselves, even if all that were correct, it's still ALSO a controversial fad where people are paying ridiculous prices for what will probably be of little interest to the vast majority of society later on. Only a few people will want to collect early NFTs and most of this stuff won't be desirable to anyone.

But this is exactly what I don't understand. Isn't digital artwork created to be hung on the wall in the end? I spend the time creating a piece of art. The final image is saved off as a file. Whether I give a single person that file because they commissioned me, or I put it up on DeviantArt for people to buy, the end-goal (I would think) is for it to be printed. So I still see no purpose in this NFT thing. 

Sera

droidy001 said:

I'm trying here From what I understand an nft identifies something as being legit. So I create an asset or piece of digital art, the nft says this is the original.

No. It does not mean it's legit. It's just an electronic receipt. You can still make a receipt for stolen goods.

MelissaGT

MeneerWolfman said:

melissastjames said:

 

I was born in 1981 and I still don't get it. The more I try to understand it, the more my head hurts.  

Here's two ways of thinking about it that might be easier to understand.

Alex Ross (the artist) sells 9 x 12 print copies of his painted artwork that come with a signed letter of authenticty for about $2,000. Now, if you go to his twitter, you'll see that image for free. If you buy one of his artbooks he releases, you'll see the same image in there along with many other pieces of his art for $50. Heck, chances are probably high that Marvel or DC commissioned him to make the original piece, so you can buy an issue of the X-Men with the same piece of art on the coevr for $4. And probably, you'll also see it as a 22 x 48 poster at your comic shop for $15 in a year or two.

The only real difference between the $2,000 print copy with the letter of authenticity and the other means of buying that image is the format it came in and that letter of authenticity. Do you own the real artwork that Alex Ross painted? No. Is your image any different that the one posted on twitter, in the collected artbook, comic book cover, or poster? No. What's the only real main difference? You bought the image from Alex who gave you a letter of authenticity to justify his enormous price difference for essentially a high quality color laser print. And maybe later on if you try to sell, it will be worth more because you can show the perspective buyer that he owns #245 of a limited edition print.

Now then, replace the phrase "9 x 12 prints of his artwork" with "Digital image with no physical copy", and then replace "signed letter of authenticity" with "Non-Fungible Token".

If the idea of spending $2,000 for a 9 x 12 print because it has a tiny piece of paper to vouch that it's an authentic print copy of piece of original art sounds dumbs to you, you're gonna feel the same way about NFT.

 

Or a simpler way to put it since we're the same age: It's the digital equivalent of buying a collectible from the Franklin Mint, and just as worthless.

If it's just a print of a digital piece of artwork, then yes the concept of a "limited edition" is completely asinine and anybody who buys into it deserves to be taken in by a Nigerian prince. If he printed it and did something to it, like physically painted over it or modified it in some way to make it unique, then okay. Maybe that's why I can't understand it...because the entire concept really is that stupid. 

MeneerWolfman

melissastjames said:

MeneerWolfman said:

melissastjames said:

 

I was born in 1981 and I still don't get it. The more I try to understand it, the more my head hurts.  

Here's two ways of thinking about it that might be easier to understand.

Alex Ross (the artist) sells 9 x 12 print copies of his painted artwork that come with a signed letter of authenticty for about $2,000. Now, if you go to his twitter, you'll see that image for free. If you buy one of his artbooks he releases, you'll see the same image in there along with many other pieces of his art for $50. Heck, chances are probably high that Marvel or DC commissioned him to make the original piece, so you can buy an issue of the X-Men with the same piece of art on the coevr for $4. And probably, you'll also see it as a 22 x 48 poster at your comic shop for $15 in a year or two.

The only real difference between the $2,000 print copy with the letter of authenticity and the other means of buying that image is the format it came in and that letter of authenticity. Do you own the real artwork that Alex Ross painted? No. Is your image any different that the one posted on twitter, in the collected artbook, comic book cover, or poster? No. What's the only real main difference? You bought the image from Alex who gave you a letter of authenticity to justify his enormous price difference for essentially a high quality color laser print. And maybe later on if you try to sell, it will be worth more because you can show the perspective buyer that he owns #245 of a limited edition print.

Now then, replace the phrase "9 x 12 prints of his artwork" with "Digital image with no physical copy", and then replace "signed letter of authenticity" with "Non-Fungible Token".

If the idea of spending $2,000 for a 9 x 12 print because it has a tiny piece of paper to vouch that it's an authentic print copy of piece of original art sounds dumbs to you, you're gonna feel the same way about NFT.

 

Or a simpler way to put it since we're the same age: It's the digital equivalent of buying a collectible from the Franklin Mint, and just as worthless.

If it's just a print of a digital piece of artwork, then yes the concept of a "limited edition" is completely asinine and anybody who buys into it deserves to be taken in by a Nigerian prince. If he printed it and did something to it, like physically painted over it or modified it in some way to make it unique, then okay. Maybe that's why I can't understand it...because the entire concept really is that stupid. 

No, you're understanding it, it's just that stupid.

And then add onto it the amount of electricity that was wasted making that NFT because it's cryptocurrency which meant someone's gpu spent god knows how long and how much electricity to create the cryptocurrency and you begin to understand why this is not only stupid and a scam, but also one that is generating a ton of e-waste and climate damage to create the "money" to buy a gif image.

MelissaGT

bytescapes said:

melissastjames said:

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. :(

You can think of an NFT as being like a certificate of ownership.

If you made an artwork on commission for Joe Customer, and suppose that you delivered a limited-edition print instead of a PNG, you might give them -- in addition to the print -- a signed certificate saying "I, melissastjames, created this artwork for Joe Customer." That certificate could also be useful down the line when you are fabulously famous and successful and everyone is scrambling to buy your art, because Joe Customer (or his heirs) could pull out the certificate and use it to establish what's known in the art world as "provenance".

The NFT says "Joe Customer is the rightful owner of the (completely immaterial) digital artwork X, because Joe Customer paid this much money for it on such and such a date." The NFT isn't the artwork -- that's a pile of pixels on a server somewhere. But the NFT records Joe Customer as the owner.

Where it gets weird is that generally speaking there's nothing to stop someone who hasn't bought an NFT from downloading that pile of pixels to their own hard drive. Jo RandomPerson may still be able to enjoy the artwork (use it as her desktop background, print it out and hang it on her wall etc.), but she doesn't own it (whatever own means in this case). In essence, Joe Customer has paid money for the right to say "That's mine."

Because we're used to buying and selling things that are either physical -- a painting -- or useful -- an exclusive right, such as a patent, or the right to publish something -- a lot of people are having trouble getting their heads around the idea of buying and selling something that is neither.

But it's not unique. It's a digital file that can be reprinted an infinite number of times. It's not like it's one of those Picasso etchings that gradually lose fidelity with each print and so early printings are worth exponentially more than later printings. If a print from a digitial file gets destroyed in a fire, the insurance company would laugh in the face of a customer wanting actual money to replace it. Or insure it to begin with. It's a digital file. It can always be reprinted and it will be the same exact thing as the original. Unless the original print was modified physically in some way by the original artist. The entire concept of a "digital original" has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever tried to wrap my head around. It's the scam to end all scams. 

If you really want to get down to brass tacks...the "digital original" would my raw render, before postwork. Or my .psd file with all the layers that went into creating the final image. That's the original that nobody will ever see because I never share it with anybody and it never gets posted online anywhere. But even then, I can copy that file an infinite number of times. It's my proof that I'm the original artist, and that's it. It's of no use to anybody but me. It's worthless. 

bytescapes

Well, the Shudu NFTs have landed. So if you still want to leap on the NFT bandwagon, now's your chance.

Although, at least for me, all the digital images are still showing the loader progress circle, so perhaps Cloudflare hasn't quite caught up yet.

One thing that is cool about this is that they're apparently using some part of the sale price to support Black Girls Code, which is a good organization. My advice would be that if you have the money to spend on NFTs, you should just give it all to BGC (or another similar charity). But that's just me being contrarian.

MelissaGT

bytescapes said:

Well, the Shudu NFTs have landed. So if you still want to leap on the NFT bandwagon, now's your chance.

Although, at least for me, all the digital images are still showing the loader progress circle, so perhaps Cloudflare hasn't quite caught up yet.

One thing that is cool about this is that they're apparently using some part of the sale price to support Black Girls Code, which is a good organization. My advice would be that if you have the money to spend on NFTs, you should just give it all to BGC (or another similar charity). But that's just me being contrarian.

I'd rather support the charity directly, rather than helping some white dude profit from fake diversity. No thanks, will not be taking part. 

Sera

They're using Opensea, the same people that hosted that guy's disappearing/not actually minted art.

Sera

You also are expected to bid on them in Ethereum, which I'm sure everyone here has laying around. Ethereum is $1,800 each eight now.

MeneerWolfman

melissastjames said:

bytescapes said:

Well, the Shudu NFTs have landed. So if you still want to leap on the NFT bandwagon, now's your chance.

Although, at least for me, all the digital images are still showing the loader progress circle, so perhaps Cloudflare hasn't quite caught up yet.

One thing that is cool about this is that they're apparently using some part of the sale price to support Black Girls Code, which is a good organization. My advice would be that if you have the money to spend on NFTs, you should just give it all to BGC (or another similar charity). But that's just me being contrarian.

I'd rather support the charity directly, rather than helping some white dude profit from fake diversity. No thanks, will not be taking part. 

The whole things reeks of 12 different layers of awful. Fake diversity, fake currency, fake ownership, etc.

My only hope is that the cryptominers and NFT promoters don't jump all over this. People use high value NFT's to launder money. Here's hoping the secret service and FBI don't coming knocking on Daz's door as it turns into the world largest money launderer 

droidy001

As someone who sees a limited edition print commissioned by the artist in exactly the same way I see a print by someone who has paid the copyright holder for the right to produce and sell print's I don't think I'll ever get it. If the artist signs his prints then this adds value but the extra you're paying is for a signature not the print. For one copy of art to be worth more than another copy of the same artwork it has to be different. Imo a digital certificate does not make it different. It is then the certificate that holds the value not the copy of the art.

FirstBastion

There is nothing you can say for this level of stupid.

sean2_7606d08833

Why the heck is DAZ involved in this nonsense? All respect gone.

Carola O

I am genuinly concern what this will mean for MY gallery here... will I risk someone deciding to steal one of my images or part of it to make one if these things?? (I Know I am not a good artist, but still...)

I'm also rather amused about the Nazgul one.. after all, Nazgul is (as far as I am aware, I may be wrong though) copyrighted to those that owns Tolkiens stuff, and I'm pretty sure that can be rather expensive for whoever sells it as this...

WendyLuvsCatz

FirstBastion said:

There is nothing you can say for this level of stupid.

LOL I said plenty (all gone) and even submitted a ticket DAZ answered 

cannot share the answer here but SMH

Sevrin

NFTs are something you can brag about owning to other people who think NFTs are cool.  You can't sell tickets to it or licence it.  You don't own the IP.  You own a string of numbers.  For something like this

FirstBastion

So what you have to do now is snap a screen shot of your post before it gets erased from existence and then you can monetize that snap in the future cause there will only ever be that one instance of evidence.

FirstBastion

They just added NFT to the top site bar.  hmmm

namffuak

In the immortal words of Mr. Gumby - "My Brane Hurtz!"

Given what you actually own as a result of the NFT purchase - a link to an object on a server somewhere - an object that can be deleted by someone else, leaving you with a (potentially) permanent purchase of a dead link - with no guarantee that the object creator even knows about the NFT creation - I personally refuse to pay more than 50 cents US for any NFT.

WendyLuvsCatz

FirstBastion said:

So what you have to do now is snap a screen shot of your post before it gets erased from existence and then you can monetize that snap in the future cause there will only ever be that one instance of evidence.

OMG I could have been rich  

SnowSultan

FirstBastion said:

They just added NFT to the top site bar.  hmmm

Oh man...we're really doing this, aren't we?   

Sevrin

FirstBastion said:

They just added NFT to the top site bar.  hmmm

And demoted the forums and gallery to a submenu.  

WendyLuvsCatz

Sevrin said:

FirstBastion said:

They just added NFT to the top site bar.  hmmm

And demoted the forums and gallery to a submenu.  

the 3D content is next