4 ms·

As the parent told you, same model as limited print runs, allowing the artist to decide how many copies of the same "object" they want there to be.

by detaro 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago
Ok, so just nonsense then. Thanks for clarifying, if that is what NFT's is then they are even more of a scam than I thought. If they could loosely be tied to image rights it would be something, but this is just nonsense. There are zero reasons for a site to have an NFT tied to what images you display in your profile on that site. Having a market for images for that site is fine. But if there was a huge demand for such sites then they would exist before NFT's. Their massive explosion in popularity thus must be that the space filled with NFT scammers with little to no real demand.
- detaro 5y ago
  They can be loosely tied to image rights, what does that have to do with this? Some of the platforms have explicit licenses attached detailing what you can do, in other cases the artists have directly declared it, ...
  - Jensson 5y ago
    How is that different from me buying imagines and stuff in Unity store? Or me buying images and packages in other online marketplaces? NFT's added nothing there. The rights comes from the site contract, not the NFT. Site goes down, NFT is worthless, same as if you didn't have an NFT.
    - detaro 5y ago
      Licenses don't expire just because the site used to broker them goes away, unless they are worded that way. (E.g. if unity were to close their store, would you loose usage rights for assets bought there? Maybe, but the license wouldn't have to be that way) Also, I don't remember ever seeing a limited edition in asset store, and tracking ownership changes of digital assets is annoying to say the least. NFT folks argue that tracking them on a blockchain works well, isn't reliant on the original creator "approving" the resale unless its setup that way and makes it publicly transparent that the claims about "only one" or "only X" are true. If those differences have any value to you is of course a personal thing. For me personally, the "own a unique digital thing" isn't really something I care about, but I get how the logic works if you do. And selling purely digital artworks has been a problem for artists before, so apparently this "public scarcity" is something some buyers care for that wouldn't just pay to download something from the artists website for whatever reason. (And plenty people who think anything "limited" doesn't have extra value and are just as happy with a unlimited print than with a special limited edition - but clearly there is a large enough market that disagrees, since otherwise more expensive limited editions wouldn't be a thing)

As the parent told you, same model as limited print runs, allowing the artist to decide how many copies of the same "object" they want there to be.

by detaro 5y ago

As the parent told you, same model as limited print runs, allowing the artist to decide how many copies of the same "object" they want there to be.

Jensson 5y ago

Ok, so just nonsense then. Thanks for clarifying, if that is what NFT's is then they are even more of a scam than I thought. If they could loosely be tied to image rights it would be something, but this is just nonsense. There are zero reasons for a site to have an NFT tied to what images you display in your profile on that site. Having a market for images for that site is fine. But if there was a huge demand for such sites then they would exist before NFT's. Their massive explosion in popularity thus must be that the space filled with NFT scammers with little to no real demand.

detaro 5y ago
They can be loosely tied to image rights, what does that have to do with this? Some of the platforms have explicit licenses attached detailing what you can do, in other cases the artists have directly declared it, ...
- Jensson 5y ago
  How is that different from me buying imagines and stuff in Unity store? Or me buying images and packages in other online marketplaces? NFT's added nothing there. The rights comes from the site contract, not the NFT. Site goes down, NFT is worthless, same as if you didn't have an NFT.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Licenses don't expire just because the site used to broker them goes away, unless they are worded that way. (E.g. if unity were to close their store, would you loose usage rights for assets bought there? Maybe, but the license wouldn't have to be that way) Also, I don't remember ever seeing a limited edition in asset store, and tracking ownership changes of digital assets is annoying to say the least. NFT folks argue that tracking them on a blockchain works well, isn't reliant on the original creator "approving" the resale unless its setup that way and makes it publicly transparent that the claims about "only one" or "only X" are true. If those differences have any value to you is of course a personal thing. For me personally, the "own a unique digital thing" isn't really something I care about, but I get how the logic works if you do. And selling purely digital artworks has been a problem for artists before, so apparently this "public scarcity" is something some buyers care for that wouldn't just pay to download something from the artists website for whatever reason. (And plenty people who think anything "limited" doesn't have extra value and are just as happy with a unlimited print than with a special limited edition - but clearly there is a large enough market that disagrees, since otherwise more expensive limited editions wouldn't be a thing)