ArtStation goes NFT...and give up by the end of the day.

[Rocky Arbigaus]

ArtStation, a digital platform for sharing art, jumped into the NFT craze yesterday, only to get a huge backlash from its users. 
By the end of the day, the platform pulled back the NFT link and posted a statement that reads:

"Dear all,

 

The last few hours since announcing our intention to run a proof of concept for NFTs on ArtStation have been humbling. Based on the strong demand from artists wanting a way into the world of NFTs, we sincerely felt an obligation to explore this path and help artists succeed.

 

In light of the critical reception on social media regarding NFTs, it’s clear that now is not the right time for NFTs on ArtStation. We are very sorry for all the negative emotions this has caused. Despite our attempts to validate our approach, we clearly made a mistake and admit fault. It was our bad.

 

We feel that NFTs are a transformative technology that can make significant, positive change for digital artists. It’s our hope that at some point in the future we’ll be able to find a solution that is equitable and ecologically sound. It will take time for us to reflect on this and we’ll do our best to earn back your trust.

 

Sincerely,

The ArtStation Team"

 

 

Quote

https://www.makeuseof.com/artstation-nft-platform/

 

Sources

https://amp.artstation.com/magazine/36821?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.makeuseof.com/artstation-nft-platform/
https://twitter.com/ArtStationHQ/status/1369147671198502913
https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cost-of-cryptoart-2221d3eb2053
https://joanielemercier.com/the-problem-of-cryptoart/

[Fasterthannothing]

That's because current art is done by a bunch of hippies who don't understand that not all blockchain technology is mined cryptocurrency. They got mad because they are convinced all blockchain is bad for the environment. They will come around when their digital art keeps getting pirated and no one can prove their art is authentic and it becomes worthless.

 

[TetraSky]

16 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

That's because current art is done by a bunch of hippies who don't understand that not all blockchain technology is mined cryptocurrency. They got mad because they are convinced all blockchain is bad for the environment. They will come around when their digital art keeps getting pirated and no one can prove their art is authentic and it becomes worthless.

Funny... Considering that's basically what is happening to artists right now with NFT on Twitter.

It doesn't protect them from art theft, at all. If anything, this adds more work to their plate for them to go around making sure no one is profiting off their hard work.

This whole NFT thing is on unsteady legal ground at best in its current form.

 

 

[Jet_ski]

9 minutes ago, Sakuriru said:

An estimated 35 kWh per transaction is a lot of electricity.

In NYC 35kWh costs ~$7 and delivery costs just as much. $14 for the transaction.

[Fasterthannothing]

3 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Funny... Considering that's basically what is happening to artists right now with NFT on Twitter.

It doesn't protect them from art theft, at all. If anything, this adds more work to their plate for them to go around making sure no one is profiting off their hard work.

This whole NFT thing is on unsteady legal ground at best in its current form.

 

 

That's because that person didn't enter their art on the blockchain first. If they had the hash would have matched and not allowed the other user to claim it so to speak

[TetraSky]

23 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

That's because that person didn't enter their art on the blockchain first. If they had the hash would have matched and not allowed the other user to claim it so to speak

Ah yes, victim blaming. They should have done X to prevent Y from happening to them. Excellent, great to know.

[Bombastinator]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nft
 

theres also “not for television” and a bunch of other ones.

[TetraSky]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nft
 

theres also “not for television” and a bunch of other ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[ivycomb]

4 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Funny... Considering that's basically what is happening to artists right now with NFT on Twitter.

It doesn't protect them from art theft, at all. If anything, this adds more work to their plate for them to go around making sure no one is profiting off their hard work.

This whole NFT thing is on unsteady legal ground at best in its current form.

 

 

On the bright side, they do have a DMCA form on their website and people can block tokenizedtweets to avoid having their work added to the NFT chain on there.

But that's a small bright side, a lot of artists won't know about this and overall I don't think this holds much validity. As an artist myself I think this is quite shit and there's no other real way for me to spin it

[DeScruff]

1 hour ago, SlidewaysZ said:

That's because that person didn't enter their art on the blockchain first. If they had the hash would have matched and not allowed the other user to claim it so to speak

Because every artist is supposed to be aware of this thing.
I mean how could they not be aware? Your aware of it! So they must be aware of this... "NFT".

* turns around and asks producer "What the frig is  NFT... No I have no idea what that means. I have never heard of this term till today." *

[Fasterthannothing]

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

Ah yes, victim blaming. They should have done X to prevent Y from happening to them. Excellent, great to know.

I'm not blaming the victim I'm trying to explain how others can protect themselves. With more new technology comes more ways to exploit it so users need to stay up-to-date on how to protect themselves instead of burying their head in the sand.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, SlidewaysZ said:

That's because current art is done by a bunch of hippies who don't understand that not all blockchain technology is mined cryptocurrency. They got mad because they are convinced all blockchain is bad for the environment. They will come around when their digital art keeps getting pirated and no one can prove their art is authentic and it becomes worthless.

 

No they got mad because they see it as piracy. Trust me, I'm knee-deep in artists on twitter and every single one is livid about NFT.

 

It's a repeat of the "... on a t-shirt" problem where there are bots that see "t-shirt" in a tweet and automatically try to get in on meme's through brute force piracy.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/twitter-users-are-trying-to-take-down-art-stealing-bots-by-getting-disney-lawyers-involved-3962353

 

The thing is, artists have already seen this happen before. (The t-shirt thing has happened at least twice) , so NFT's being made without authorization is just going to piss off everyone and make sure it gains no legitimacy, and likely get the hackles of lawyers from a big media company involved.

 

[Bombastinator]

51 minutes ago, Jessinator said:

On the bright side, they do have a DMCA form on their website and people can block tokenizedtweets to avoid having their work added to the NFT chain on there.

But that's a small bright side, a lot of artists won't know about this and overall I don't think this holds much validity. As an artist myself I think this is quite shit and there's no other real way for me to spin it

I don’t really do art anymore but I went to school for it once upon a time.  A lot of people who go to art school don’t care a whit for computers.  I knew a guy with a rich dad who owned a pair of custom stage boots from a famous rock star.  The kid thought they were cool (which they were) so he wore them to death.  
 

Can you expand on that one?  This may be an argument that needs to be made.

[Fasterthannothing]

34 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No they got mad because they see it as piracy. Trust me, I'm knee-deep in artists on twitter and every single one is livid about NFT.

 

It's a repeat of the "... on a t-shirt" problem where there are bots that see "t-shirt" in a tweet and automatically try to get in on meme's through brute force piracy.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/twitter-users-are-trying-to-take-down-art-stealing-bots-by-getting-disney-lawyers-involved-3962353

 

The thing is, artists have already seen this happen before. (The t-shirt thing has happened at least twice) , so NFT's being made without authorization is just going to piss off everyone and make sure it gains no legitimacy, and likely get the hackles of lawyers from a big media company involved.

 

As mentioned above if the artist has a copyright on their work they can get it removed. It boils down to the fact that they don't see the benefits (or understand the technical aspects) of using the technology to protect their digital assets they ignore it until they see it as a problem. Instead of getting their art on the block chain in the first place and eliminating the problem all together. If it's so easy to steal it via a tweet it's just as easy to license it via a tweet. As soon as the tweet art they should slso follow up by putting it on the Blockchain.

[Fasterthannothing]

4 minutes ago, Sakuriru said:

People can already copy artwork and sell it as their own. This just adds an extra step.

So one extra step to protect your assets online is too much work? No wonder people can't keep their accounts secure probably the same people who think typing in a 2fa code is too much work.

[DeScruff]

1 minute ago, SlidewaysZ said:

So one extra step to protect your assets online is too much work? No wonder people can't keep their accounts secure probably the same people who think typing in a 2fa code is too much work.

"One extra setup" (multiplied by however many of these stupid NFTs get made because if I am reading this correctly, just like how technically anyone can make a crypto, anyone can technically make a NFT blockchain. - Oh sure they might not be popular today, but whos to say in another 3 years, I mean we are in this concepts infancy)

[Fasterthannothing]

21 minutes ago, DeScruff said:

"One extra setup" (multiplied by however many of these stupid NFTs get made because if I am reading this correctly, just like how technically anyone can make a crypto, anyone can technically make a NFT blockchain. - Oh sure they might not be popular today, but whos to say in another 3 years, I mean we are in this concepts infancy)

That's not even how the technology works. You only need to do it once 

 

Quote

Non-fungible token standards allow non-fungible tokens to move easily across multiple ecosystems. When a developer launches a new NFT project, these NFTs are immediately viewable inside dozens of different wallet providers, tradeable on marketplaces, and, most recently, displayable inside of virtual worlds. This is possible because open standards provide a clear, consistent, reliable, and permissioned API for reading and writing data.

https://opensea.io/blog/guides/non-fungible-tokens/#Interoperability

[Rocky Arbigaus]

2 hours ago, SlidewaysZ said:

That's because that person didn't enter their art on the blockchain first. If they had the hash would have matched and not allowed the other user to claim it so to speak

So, it's ok for someone take my car and sell it because I left it on the street instead of put it inside the garage? Your logic is flawed.

[Fasterthannothing]

5 minutes ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

So, it's ok for someone take my car and sell it because I left it on the street instead of put it inside the garage? Your logic is flawed.

There is nothing stopping them from doing a a DMCA removal

[Rocky Arbigaus]

19 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

There is nothing stopping them from doing a a DMCA removal

No, but imagine if you get 30, 50, 100 artwork stolen. That if you even know you had a stolen artwork in the first place

[Rocky Arbigaus]

Ant yet, the problem at hand here is more about the environment. Not only you spend more energy, but you increase the GPU shortages.

[Rocky Arbigaus]

https://joanielemercier.com/the-problem-of-cryptoart/
https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cost-of-cryptoart-2221d3eb2053

I added these two links to the main post as well.

[NovaFinch]

17 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

There is nothing stopping them from doing a a DMCA removal

What if the artist is dead or in a state where they cannot communicate? Who is going to issue the DMCA?

 

What if the artist has hundreds if not thousands of pieces of work that have all been stolen? Do you want them to have to spend hours issuing take downs?

 

The artist should never have to take legal action and shit like this only makes it easier for people to steal the work of others.

[Jtalk4456]

If there's something I'm missing, please don't hesitate to stop me, but I follow a bunch of artists on twitter, not just for fun ones, but ones selling their art constantly. If we're talking about those in this conversation, I don't see the NFT doing anything but providing an extra step/cost to the artist. I can at any time click on an image for sale and save with ease. Some websites won't have a save option, so you just have to screenshot. I can steal those images at any time, not saying I do, but I easily can, and I wouldn't be worried about having a NFT or some proof. Most people aren't even trying to pass it off as theirs or sell it, they just save stuff for phone wallpapers. I just don't really see what impact the option of a digital proof will have. I've never stopped and thought to myself "Gee I wish I had some form of digital proof that I paid for a picture instead of saving from Google Images search, if only..."