Screenshotting NFTs

[Blademaster91]

15 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Also, I have alluded to it a couple of times already but I feel like the anti-NFT crowd misses it. I think that a lot of people see NFTs as a way to support their favourite artists. NFTs are just a fun way to give something back to someone donating, and once you have donated you might be able to sell it to get some money back. It's essentially donation by proxy.

The NFT buyers miss the fact you don't need NFT's to support an artist you like, you can donate to them, or buy an art print, and at least with an art print you physically got a copy, not just a receipt that holds no value at all.

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Aside from copyright on the Mona Lisa not being applicable in general because the author died centuries ago

Okay good point. The Mona Lisa was a bad example.

 

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm pretty sure that so long as you're not selling a copy of the work or using it as part of another work you're technically not breaking copyright.

But that's the thing though. Selling an NFT of a copyrighted work would be "using it as part of another work". You can't claim you aren't using Avengers Endgame if you try to sell "Avengers Endgame NFT". 

As soon as you claim "this NFT is associated with <copyrighted work>", you are breaking copyright law, unless you got permission or are doing it under fair use. And before it gets brought up, I strongly doubt it would be considered fair use to just say "this is an Avengers Endgame NFT, it's fair use because it's an NFT and not the movie itself", but that's up to a court to decide if it ever gets to that. 

 

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Can I be sued by Marvel for selling you a piece of paper with a hash of an image of Spider-Man?

If you say it is the hash of an image of Spider-Man, and that is the reason why the sale is happening, I don't see why you wouldn't  be able to get sued for it.

If it's just a hash and neither you nor I have any idea that it is a hash of Spider-man, and it is never mentioned, then I don't think it would be copyright infringement.

 

I think there would also be a strong argument that an NFT is a derivative work, in which case it would be copyright infringement. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I think the difference between an NFT and a fan movie is meaningful; there is no real tie between the NFT and the image and I'm not reproducing the image to sell it to you. I could be wrong though, I'm not a lawyer after all.

I am not a lawyer either so it is possible that I am wrong too, but I do know that derivative works are protected under copyright law, and I have a very strong feeling that if something was sold because it was heavily tied to a copyrighted work, it would be copyright infringement.

I can't make a movie and say "this is the latest captain America movie"  without permission from Marvel. Even if Captain America isn't in the movie, and even if the movie is free for everyone to view on my website, it would still most likely be copyright infringement. Disney might choose to not sue me though even if they are in the right (which is probably what happens with a lot of fan movies, or home videos).

[Quackers101]

if one could go around networks that might try to abuse the system and make a place that handles NFTs with correct date as well?

About having an ART site or network that tries to uphold copyrights and art, mostly by those being the first to put a "receipt" on their work.

While the other issue being around the cryptocurrency used, as well. If they are just going to dedicate themselves to 1-2 of the main currencies?

[LAwLz]

34 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Would you buy a certificate of authenticity for a painting you don't own?

I mean, if I bought the prop Mjölnir then I wouldn't get the copyright ownership of the design or the hammer. I would just get the hammer and the certificate. When you buy an NFT you probably get a copy of the picture too, just like I would get a hammer along with the certificate of authenticity. 

In the case of NFTs though, it's not the picture you are interested in, it's the certificate, since everyone can make an exact replicate of the picture if they want.

 

And just to be clear, I don't own any NFTs, I don't advocate that people should buy them, I don't plan on buying them and I will most likely never buy any NFT (in before I do in 10 years time when they are everywhere). I am just trying to explain what they are and why some people (that aren't me) are interested in them.

 

I saw someone say I was shilling NFTs or whatever earlier and I am not. If you don't want NFTs then don't buy it. I am a very practical person and like I said earlier, from a practical standpoint NFTs doesn't make much practical sense. Art in general doesn't make much practical sense.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Plus, certificates of authenticity can be issued more than once - holding a specific one doesn't really mean anything without owning the painting.

Yeah, but Marvel could probably create more Mjölnir hammers and write more certificates of authenticity for them. So that's a "flaw" with collectors items in general, not really NFTs.

If the original seller is caught selling duplicates then they will probably get caught and shamed.

Some malicious actor creating fake copies but claiming they are the original is not exclusive to NFTs either. It happens all the time. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Sauron said:

so long as we recognize it has nothing to do with the artwork and all that is being traded are tokens with no more intrinsic value than a unique grain of sand.

Absolutely true. I think that is a common misunderstanding people have with NFTs as well (both the NFT-bros and the NFT-haters). But in practice, does it really matter?

 

 

44 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If we want to get into what NFT buyers believe, I think it's pretty obvious they're only in it for the speculation - but they'll insist it's actually about paying artists for their work. You can see this in this very thread. At best this is misleading and at worst it's dishonest advertisement for a pump and dump scheme. It's not genuine artists making bank off NFTs, it's people pumping out autogenerated astroturfed garbage.

I don't think we can generalize NFT buyers to such a degree. I don't know any personally, but I imagine that if Linus launched some NFT then I am sure at least some people would be buying them in order to support Linus, not as some type of gambling hoping they increase in value. I have also seen artists and organisations sell NFTs in charity auctions. I wouldn't be surprised that the fact that the money goes to charity plays at least some role in how much money they sell for.

 

There are plenty of bad actors (artists, buyers and sellers) trying to make a quick buck on the NFT craze that is going on right now, but I don't think all of them are.

I don't think all artists selling NFTs are "pumping out autogenerated astroturfed garbage" either. The big ones that gets memed certainly are like that bored apes guy, but he is certainly not the only one selling NFTs. Say what you want about people like Banksy, but I think you will have a hard time arguing that he isn't a "genuine artist", and he sells NFTs. 

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The NFT buyers miss the fact you don't need NFT's to support an artist you like, you can donate to them, or buy an art print, and at least with an art print you physically got a copy, not just a receipt that holds no value at all.

Absolutely agree.

I do however think that some people like NFTs because:

1) People like getting something in return. For example when Linus was raising funds for his office he gave people who donated badges. Did he have to do that? Not really. It's just a little picture that holds no real value. Did it make people who donated feel like they got something in return? Absolutely. I know that because I was one of those people, twice.

 

2) I think it's silly to say that NFTs are "receipts that holds no value at all". They definitively have some value. Just because you don't see the value doesn't mean it is worthless. I think a lot of modern contemporary art like that from Andy Warhol is ugly, stupid and pointless, but I would never say his works are worthless because people do pay a ton of money for them. Have you seen "Triple Elvis"? He copy and pasted a publicity picture of Elvis three times and it sold for almost 1,9 million dollars in 1998. I wouldn't say that's worthless. I'd say that picture was worth around 1.9 million dollars 20+ years ago.

[Moonzy]

28 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

not just a receipt that holds no value at all.

who decides what's the value of an item other than the buyer and seller, though?
if someone believes it has value, then it does

people do be selling literal rocks, as if it's not something u can pick up from the side of the road

[Sauron]

26 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you say it is the hash of an image of Spider-Man, and that is the reason why the sale is happening, I don't see why you wouldn't  be able to get sued for it.

If it's just a hash and neither you nor I have any idea that it is a hash of Spider-man, and it is never mentioned, then I don't think it would be copyright infringement.

 

I think there would also be a strong argument that an NFT is a derivative work, in which case it would be copyright infringement. 

I do wonder. There's also the fact that you're not paying with a recognized currency so one might argue no purchase is being made - and if a court finds a purchase was made that court might also ask why it wasn't taxed

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am sure at least some people would be buying them in order to support Linus, not as some type of gambling hoping they increase in value.

Oh, some people, sure. I think those people would be equally willing to buy a poster on lttstore.com or even just a digital wallpaper without having it tied to an NFT.

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think all artists selling NFTs are "pumping out autogenerated astroturfed garbage" either.

I specified - I mean the ones currently making a most of the money. There are a couple of exceptions, Banksy possibly being one of them - though Banksy being one of the most famous artists in the world kinda makes my point that it's not the little guys on deviantart getting a share.