6 ms·

The NFT is sold under the false pretence that is somehow connected with some object of art, when in fact there isn't any such connection. This is what makes NF

by lottin 5y ago

The NFT is sold under the false pretence that is somehow connected with some object of art, when in fact there isn't any such connection. This is what makes NFTs a scam.

azemetre 5y ago
Yeah, when I realized you don't actually "own" it through any licenses it made me sour on the whole idea. Is there a reason why people couldn't be granted a license to do whatever they wanted with an NFT? Seems kind of arbitrary to do so, but I'm sure there's a reason why it's like that.
- Jxl180 5y ago
  Buying a physical painting doesn’t give you any licenses to the artwork itself either. Just because you buy a modern painting at auction for $30 million doesn’t give you rights to start printing T-shirts of the art.
  - analognoise 5y ago
    Yes it does. You own the art. (?) For that price, you're getting all the rights to it in perpetuity.
    - Jxl180 5y ago
      That is incorrect. You own the physical piece of art, not the copyright to the art. if I own an original sketch by Charles Shultz of Charlie Brown, that doesn’t give me any rights to the character of Charlie Brown. If an author gives me a handwritten, first draft manuscript of a new novel, I may be able to sell that physical manuscript but it doesn’t give me any rights to the work itself.
- lottin 5y ago
  Because anyone can mint an NFT, whether they have a license or not, so it would require a bureaucracy to check the validity of the NFTs, and so on, in other words a central authority. And if the system relies on a central authority then it makes no sense to trade the licenses on a blockchain, as the blockchain only adds an unnecessary step. Skip the blockchain and go directly to the central authority.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I keep expecting to read something that makes NFTs seem reasonable but the more I read the worse they sound.
- capnorange 5y ago
  I believe all NFTs should be in public domain, in the same spirit as open-source. recent NFT projects like Nouns[1] and many others have taken this approach! [1] https://nouns.wtf https://nouns.wtf
- prestigious 5y ago
  You own your BAYC for instance. Man it's like talking to my grandma in here.
capnorange 5y ago
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html "Legitimacy is a pattern of higher-order acceptance. An outcome in some social context is legitimate if the people in that social context broadly accept and play their part in enacting that outcome, and each individual person does so because they expect everyone else to do the same."
mattdesl 5y ago
Many artists would disagree. The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1]. These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may decide to produce and distribute 50 printed and signed editions. The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand. [1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/ https://www.deafbeef.com/
- lottin 5y ago
  How do these 'conceptual ties' work? For example, suppose I create an NFT of the Eiffel Tower. When and how does that particular NFT become conceptually tied to the Eiffel Tower exactly? I don't understand.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    It comes through a combination of the artist's intent ("I am distributing this artwork in the form of a limited series of tokens") and social consensus ("We recognize that the artefact is an artwork, created by the artist"). What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to be so. Perhaps that will happen at some point in the future (an artist's digital reinterpretation of Found Art) but at present the crypto artworks we are mostly regarding tend to have a more direct relationship with what the artist/creator is producing by hand (or via digital code/software). It is not much different than a print series, where the artist says the prints signed in pencil are "the artwork", and social consensus decides that only those pieces of paper with the artist's own pencil signature are valuable, instead of a reproduction by a machine or by a forger, even though the reproduction may have the same or similar material qualities.

by lottin 5y ago

The NFT is sold under the false pretence that is somehow connected with some object of art, when in fact there isn't any such connection. This is what makes NFTs a scam.

azemetre 5y ago

Yeah, when I realized you don't actually "own" it through any licenses it made me sour on the whole idea. Is there a reason why people couldn't be granted a license to do whatever they wanted with an NFT? Seems kind of arbitrary to do so, but I'm sure there's a reason why it's like that.

Jxl180 5y ago
Buying a physical painting doesn’t give you any licenses to the artwork itself either. Just because you buy a modern painting at auction for $30 million doesn’t give you rights to start printing T-shirts of the art.
- analognoise 5y ago
  Yes it does. You own the art. (?) For that price, you're getting all the rights to it in perpetuity.
  - Jxl180 5y ago
    That is incorrect. You own the physical piece of art, not the copyright to the art. if I own an original sketch by Charles Shultz of Charlie Brown, that doesn’t give me any rights to the character of Charlie Brown. If an author gives me a handwritten, first draft manuscript of a new novel, I may be able to sell that physical manuscript but it doesn’t give me any rights to the work itself.
lottin 5y ago
Because anyone can mint an NFT, whether they have a license or not, so it would require a bureaucracy to check the validity of the NFTs, and so on, in other words a central authority. And if the system relies on a central authority then it makes no sense to trade the licenses on a blockchain, as the blockchain only adds an unnecessary step. Skip the blockchain and go directly to the central authority.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  I keep expecting to read something that makes NFTs seem reasonable but the more I read the worse they sound.
capnorange 5y ago
I believe all NFTs should be in public domain, in the same spirit as open-source. recent NFT projects like Nouns[1] and many others have taken this approach! [1] https://nouns.wtf https://nouns.wtf
prestigious 5y ago
You own your BAYC for instance. Man it's like talking to my grandma in here.

capnorange 5y ago

https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html "Legitimacy is a pattern of higher-order acceptance. An outcome in some social context is legitimate if the people in that social context broadly accept and play their part in enacting that outcome, and each individual person does so because they expect everyone else to do the same."

mattdesl 5y ago

Many artists would disagree. The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1]. These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may decide to produce and distribute 50 printed and signed editions. The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand. [1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/ https://www.deafbeef.com/

lottin 5y ago
How do these 'conceptual ties' work? For example, suppose I create an NFT of the Eiffel Tower. When and how does that particular NFT become conceptually tied to the Eiffel Tower exactly? I don't understand.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  It comes through a combination of the artist's intent ("I am distributing this artwork in the form of a limited series of tokens") and social consensus ("We recognize that the artefact is an artwork, created by the artist"). What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to be so. Perhaps that will happen at some point in the future (an artist's digital reinterpretation of Found Art) but at present the crypto artworks we are mostly regarding tend to have a more direct relationship with what the artist/creator is producing by hand (or via digital code/software). It is not much different than a print series, where the artist says the prints signed in pencil are "the artwork", and social consensus decides that only those pieces of paper with the artist's own pencil signature are valuable, instead of a reproduction by a machine or by a forger, even though the reproduction may have the same or similar material qualities.