4 ms·
The lost Amiga art is never shown, in this article or any of the linked sources. The 9 images on that "lost" disk aren't actually displayed. The disk itself is
by ogou 2y ago
The lost Amiga art is never shown, in this article or any of the linked sources. The 9 images on that "lost" disk aren't actually displayed. The disk itself is the valuable object, kind of like Picasso signing a napkin. But, even the disk isn't shown. None of these articles say whether anybody tried reading the disk.
- bni 2y agoProbably the files will be hoarded. Previous discovered files from old floppies by AW, and also ones by Keith Haring was sold as "NFT". That had the positive side effect for me to be able to extract exact copies (although not original files). See here: https://www.amigalove.com/viewtopic.php?t=2594 https://www.amigalove.com/viewtopic.php?t=2594
- skrebbel 2y ago> original files What's the difference between an original file and an exact copy?
- Ylpertnodi 2y agoTheft. But, ianal.
- superrad 2y agoI think they mean the original amiga files, not the nft image which obviously right click save is the same as buying it .
- bni 2y agoyes thanks, that's what I meant
- bni 2y agoAn original file would be the same file byte for byte in the original obsolete image format for example ILBM/IFF. An exact copy would be a lossless PNG (for example) of the image, that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference by looking at it when it's displayed on a screen from the original.
- Bluecobra 2y agoReal vintage computing aficionados prefer a KryoFlux disk image, it's magnetic flux transitions produce a warmer image and hits the high photoreceptor notes in your retina.
- blacksqr 2y agoKryoFlux digital technology will never match the quality of images on vinyl.
- criddell 2y agoI wonder if they could be shared? Who owns the copyright? It would be the Warhol estate, no? This person can sell the disks but I don’t think they are selling rights to the work on the disk. I think it might be similar to me selling you my DVD of Star Wars.
- blacksqr 2y agoThe Debbie Harry image at least, since Warhol displayed it in public without a copyright notice, is in the public domain.
- tambourine_man 2y agoIs that how it works?
- EvanAnderson 2y agoIt would be interesting to know, actually. Prior to 1989 copyright notices were required on works in the US, but historically no fine art that I'm aware of has had copyright notices. (I'm on my phone and have limited enthusiasm for searching in this UI...)
- blacksqr 2y agoIt's well-established that, before 1989, anything copyrightable required a copyright notice when first presented to the public or it immediately and irrevocably went into the public domain. A classic case is a Picasso sculpture purchased by the city of Chicago in 1967. Prior to installation of the sculpture, city officials presented a model to the public. A copyright notice was put on a placard nearby, but not on the model. A lawsuit established that since there was no notice on the model, the design was in the public domain, and people could make postcards and posters of the sculpture freely, much to the city's dismay. So yes, much of the fine art produced in the USA before 1989 is in the public domain.
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]