4 ms·

Artist sells painting for $1k. Buyer then sells painting for $1M. Next buyer sells for $10M. Original artist only made $1k on a $10M painting. Shouldn't the

Artist sells painting for $1k. Buyer then sells painting for $1M. Next buyer sells for $10M. Original artist only made $1k on a $10M painting. Shouldn't the original artist be able to participate in the upside of their creation? I'm not seeing the "evil" here. Just a way for creators to cut out the middle men. Or, just a different way of structuring a contract. There's a lot of moralistic FUD against crypto on HN right now. Feels very much like a coordinated propaganda campaign.

cdelsolar 5y ago
yes, agree with the FUD comment, please stop, you're making my crypto drop
hervature 5y ago
Do you feel the same way with collectible cars? Every time a 69 Thunderbird is sold, Ford should get a cut in the upside? How do you feel about the inverse? If a painting goes down in value, is the artist on the hook for the downside of their creation? The answer is no, the creator handed over the creation on sale. Anything else would need to be hashed out in a contract which would drastically reduce sale price.
- chrischattin 5y ago
  I don't have feelings about it either way. I think you're reading way too much into my comment. It's just a new interesting way to structure a contract. Neither good nor evil. I certainly don't think it's "evil" like the comment I replied.
  - hervature 5y ago
    Yes, I did forget the OP. I don't understand how people getting paid is evil either. Whether that comes in a huge lump sum at the beginning or in interest overtime, it doesn't really matter. There is going to be a cash flow analysis that will tell you how much one version of the contract is worth relative to the other. My comment was more that these contracts aren't new, they just aren't particularly useful because it is hard to think of a contract in perpetuity.
solomonb 5y ago
In that scenario all future paintings from that artist go up in sale price and the artist profits.
gfxgirl 5y ago
That's not how things are supposed to work AFAIK. I go buy a book, DVD, CD, video, etc for $10. I can then resell it for $8 or if it becomes rare for $20. The original creator only gets the first $10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- hatsunearu 5y ago
  Well, it's how everything else works, but there's no saying that it's meant to be this way.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cdelsolar 5y ago

yes, agree with the FUD comment, please stop, you're making my crypto drop

hervature 5y ago

Do you feel the same way with collectible cars? Every time a 69 Thunderbird is sold, Ford should get a cut in the upside? How do you feel about the inverse? If a painting goes down in value, is the artist on the hook for the downside of their creation? The answer is no, the creator handed over the creation on sale. Anything else would need to be hashed out in a contract which would drastically reduce sale price.

chrischattin 5y ago
I don't have feelings about it either way. I think you're reading way too much into my comment. It's just a new interesting way to structure a contract. Neither good nor evil. I certainly don't think it's "evil" like the comment I replied.
- hervature 5y ago
  Yes, I did forget the OP. I don't understand how people getting paid is evil either. Whether that comes in a huge lump sum at the beginning or in interest overtime, it doesn't really matter. There is going to be a cash flow analysis that will tell you how much one version of the contract is worth relative to the other. My comment was more that these contracts aren't new, they just aren't particularly useful because it is hard to think of a contract in perpetuity.

solomonb 5y ago

In that scenario all future paintings from that artist go up in sale price and the artist profits.

gfxgirl 5y ago

That's not how things are supposed to work AFAIK. I go buy a book, DVD, CD, video, etc for $10. I can then resell it for $8 or if it becomes rare for $20. The original creator only gets the first $10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

hatsunearu 5y ago
Well, it's how everything else works, but there's no saying that it's meant to be this way.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]