5 ms·

> Opinion. Well, of course it's an opinion. But on the art part there are good reasons to believe I'm right. Do you really think Gasparian's blobs are worth pa

> Opinion. Well, of course it's an opinion. But on the art part there are good reasons to believe I'm right. Do you really think Gasparian's blobs are worth paying for? Why would it even matter who owns which? They all look about the same. I think it's plausible that they're too simplistic to be copyrighted, even. > That's about all I can say. I hope one day you change your mind. Why? Why would my opinion matter at all? If the important bit is giving artists recognition and money, why would it matter how I do it? Now if the important bit is propping up the crypto system, then that makes sense, but then it has nothing to do with the art. > Perhaps when one of your favourite artists drops an NFT? Anyway, glad to have had a civil conversation. Why would I buy a NFT from an artist? What does that get me? If I simply want to view the work, it's already out there. What do I care who it supposedly belongs to? If it's about giving the artist money, I'd much rather buy a commission, which is far more personal, or just contribute money directly. If I want the rights to use their work, then I'm much better off doing it the old fashioned legal way. Because that way there's no doubt about what I bought, and I can't lose it if somebody scams or hacks me.

kranke155 4y ago
Ok yeah I get all your points. On the topic of Gasparian’s “blobs” the whole point of FXhash is that it’s a generative market - the actual artwork is code, and it generates the blobs according to some rules + some randomness function that’s part of the code - some “blobs” are rarer, some are more common. He’s made them into a limited edition of 200, so there are some rarer than others. But the artwork is not “blobs” but the result of generative code that outputs a result every time you mint an NFT. For generative artists, it’s sort of a way new avenue to explore. I find it really interesting. This is Gasparian’s work but there are a lot of really interesting examples - generative cityscapes, canyons. I like Gasparian’s work so I bought as many “blobs” as I could. It didn’t cost me much, and yes I think he deserves the money and recognition. I find his work beautiful. Outside of that I can’t say much!
- dale_glass 4y ago
  In that case it's very plausible that none of that is copyrightable in the first place, because copyright requires human activity. That's what caused the monkey picture hubbub. Since apparently the monkey made its own picture, nobody has the copyright of that, and it's in the public domain. This was even though the artist tried to make the case that they engineered the situation itself by placing camera equipment such that a selfie was likely to happen. It's also well established that collection of facts and works devoid of human creativity are not copyrightable. So for instance an alphabetical list of businesses in a given city, or feeding a classical painting through a scanner are not copyrightable. So there's a very plausible argument to be made that unless a human is heavily involved in generating the specific artwork, it's just in the public domain. The actual code would be protected, but the randomly generated results are extremely likely to be in the public domain. Now this is still an area in doubt and I think it's plausible that some of them are copyrightable. If you spent 3 hours trying to get Dalle2 to spit out the exact thing you want, and tweaked stuff a hundred times, that might be enough human input and you might own the copyright of that. But that's just a guess, and so far nobody knows how it will go, and what requirements a court dealing with this issue will devise. So IMO for the time being artists shouldn't put rely too much on selling generative artwork, because it could well turn out that it'd be completely legal for me to use all the images on FXhash for any purpose I wish without paying a cent for it.

kranke155 4y ago

Ok yeah I get all your points. On the topic of Gasparian’s “blobs” the whole point of FXhash is that it’s a generative market - the actual artwork is code, and it generates the blobs according to some rules + some randomness function that’s part of the code - some “blobs” are rarer, some are more common. He’s made them into a limited edition of 200, so there are some rarer than others. But the artwork is not “blobs” but the result of generative code that outputs a result every time you mint an NFT. For generative artists, it’s sort of a way new avenue to explore. I find it really interesting. This is Gasparian’s work but there are a lot of really interesting examples - generative cityscapes, canyons. I like Gasparian’s work so I bought as many “blobs” as I could. It didn’t cost me much, and yes I think he deserves the money and recognition. I find his work beautiful. Outside of that I can’t say much!

dale_glass 4y ago
In that case it's very plausible that none of that is copyrightable in the first place, because copyright requires human activity. That's what caused the monkey picture hubbub. Since apparently the monkey made its own picture, nobody has the copyright of that, and it's in the public domain. This was even though the artist tried to make the case that they engineered the situation itself by placing camera equipment such that a selfie was likely to happen. It's also well established that collection of facts and works devoid of human creativity are not copyrightable. So for instance an alphabetical list of businesses in a given city, or feeding a classical painting through a scanner are not copyrightable. So there's a very plausible argument to be made that unless a human is heavily involved in generating the specific artwork, it's just in the public domain. The actual code would be protected, but the randomly generated results are extremely likely to be in the public domain. Now this is still an area in doubt and I think it's plausible that some of them are copyrightable. If you spent 3 hours trying to get Dalle2 to spit out the exact thing you want, and tweaked stuff a hundred times, that might be enough human input and you might own the copyright of that. But that's just a guess, and so far nobody knows how it will go, and what requirements a court dealing with this issue will devise. So IMO for the time being artists shouldn't put rely too much on selling generative artwork, because it could well turn out that it'd be completely legal for me to use all the images on FXhash for any purpose I wish without paying a cent for it.