6 ms·
In the current system when an artist creates something and sells it, they typically get paid once, often lowballed. The buyer may turn around and sell it for 10
by atlantas 5y ago
In the current system when an artist creates something and sells it, they typically get paid once, often lowballed. The buyer may turn around and sell it for 100x. The buyer made far more than the artist, who gets nothing in this scenario.
With NFTs the artist can get a cut of every transfer indefinitely.
- zoenolan 5y agoNot in every jurisdiction. I would look at Droit de suite [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite
- OGWhales 5y ago> With NFTs they can get a cut of every transfer indefinitely How does that work? Also, what is to stop people copying it anyway and what is to stop artist from getting underpaid? All serious questions that I'd like to see answers to but don't understand how NFTs would solve any of them.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- almostkorean 5y agoRoyalties are built into marketplace smart contracts. Individuals can do P2P trades where the artist doesn't receive any royalty but this doesn't happen very often. Anecdotally, it typically only happens on large deals and people who do a P2P trade often send the artist their royalty anyway (but still benefit from not paying the OpenSea fees for example) Not sure what you mean by the second question
- fivre 5y agoWait, so the purported royalty benefit of wrapping this in a contract can be circumvented, but the NFT tech is still good because people who circumvent this kindly send the artist the royalty anyway? Would they not be able to send the same courtesy royalty if no NFTs were involved?
- almostkorean 5y agoNot what I was trying to say at all, I'm saying that NFT tech is good because the default option is that the artist gets royalties and this happens probably >95% of the time? I think I felt compelled to mention that people send it anyway because it's good behavior and not all scams/crimes people say it is. In general I think the royalty thing is just one nice bonus of using smart contracts
- wahnfrieden 5y agoplease see “ideas on a shelf”
- _Nat_ 5y agoIdiomatically, "shelved ideas". Shelving can be more abstract, but generally it's not idiomatic for abstract-concepts to be "on a shelf". Language aside, I think you're being inconsistent with that concept: there are better solutions for compensating artists than NFT's already, so it's inconsistent to say that you want active-solutions as a justification for working on an less-active-solution.
- wahnfrieden 5y agoI'm replying specifically to "Would they not be able to send the same courtesy royalty if no NFTs were involved?" which absolutely there is not already a satisfying solution in place. No thanks for the language lesson
- Tenoke 5y agoOwnership transfer is done by a function call. The function often has extra logic like % of the funds for the transfer going to the artist. I guess you can cheat by sending a small amount in the transfer and seperately paying the seller the rest but then you make the thing you bought seem cheaper in the official records so that's in most cases counter-productive.
- Gwypaas 5y agoSo I guess the next goal here is a startup to implement this as a smart contract to go full circle. The market will do it because any transaction fee is a hindrance to it's liquidity and is a possibility to undercut someone else.
- KarlKemp 5y agoThat's not always true. German copyright law, for example, includes a right for artists to a cut of the proceeds for auctions in the secondary market.
- wahnfrieden 5y agoThis is what I mean by idea on a shelf - this idea doesn’t have mass adoption momentum and is also not accessible to less established artists
- pyrale 5y agoPhysical art typically doesn't get flipped that much, especially art from artists that actually need support.
- tashoecraft 5y agoNo you're assuming based on what seems like no knowledge of the industry.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago> With NFTs the artist can get a cut of every transfer indefinitely. Too bad this hadn't been invented when Ted Nelson was alive.
- dougb5 5y agoYou scared me. He is very much still alive. (Or do you know something I don't?)
- aerostable_slug 5y agoHuh. I distinctly thought he'd passed. Well, I'm very glad to be wrong! I wonder what he thinks about this potential enabling technology for transclusion.
- MathCodeLove 5y agoOh so it's a pyramid scheme as well? What a horrible payment system. Imagine if whenever you sold your car you had to take a fraction of what you received for it and give it back to the dealership (or rather, the manufacturer in this case).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mupuff1234 5y agoThat's still beneficial to the artist as it usually raises the market value for the rest of their work.
- stubish 5y agoAlmost all art sold is only sold once. The figure I've seen is 0.5% of paintings bought are ever resold. Most artists would be overjoyed at someone flipping their work for 100x, because their future sales now look better. It is similar to gallery commissions, where 40% of hardly anything is a bargain and 40% of a lot is worth every penny.