Associated Press is going to start selling NFTs of their photos

[spartaman64]

Quote

The marketplace and first NFTs are set to debut on Monday, Jan. 31.

The initial collection will feature photography by current and former AP photojournalists and a selection of digitally enhanced depictions of their work. Pulitzer Prize-winning AP images will be included.

Quote

The initial collection will be released over a period of weeks beginning Jan. 31. NFTs will range from space, climate, war and other images to spotlights on the work of specific AP photographers.

NFT price points will vary. As a not-for-profit news cooperative, proceeds go back into funding factual, unbiased AP journalism.

Quote

Collectors of all levels will be able to seamlessly buy, sell and trade official AP digital collectibles through the marketplace. It will support secondary market transactions and purchases using credit card payments as well as crypto wallets, including MetaMask, with support for Fortmatic, Binance, and Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) to come.

The NFTs will be minted on the Polygon blockchain, which is an environmentally friendly, Ethereum-compatible layer two solution.

source: https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2022/ap-to-launch-nft-marketplace-built-by-xooa 

 

I expected better from AP. They do try to address the concern with power usage and people more knowledgeable than me would have to evaluate if its adequate and maybe they do have good intentions with the money. But scamming for charity is still a scam imo.

[DildorTheDecent]

*right-click*

"Save Image As"

 

ez

[Radium_Angel]

2 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

*right-click*

"Save Image As"

 

ez

And no "digitally enhanced depictions of their work." if you get from an original/trusted source.

[dizmo]

I don't see an issue. If people are stupid enough to buy them, let them. There's a very small percentage of people buying NFTs, and they just circle jerk each other to try and up the "value" of the items. They are, frankly, ridiculous.

[shoutingsteve]

20 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

source: https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2022/ap-to-launch-nft-marketplace-built-by-xooa 

 

I expected better from AP. They do try to address the concern with power usage and people more knowledgeable than me would have to evaluate if its adequate and maybe they do have good intentions with the money. But scamming for charity is still a scam imo.

Scamming for charity IS better than scamming, but this isn't for charity.  It's akin to the whole NFT argument:  is saving a copy the same as owning the NFT?  If the purpose of the image is to be viewed and enjoyed, then the copy is fine.  Versus bragging rights for owning the NFT.  If the purpose is to "go back into funding factual unbiased journalism"  (not charity) then it's still doing good, just the tab is being picked up by people who want bragging rights.

How is this different than PBS giving gifts for your donation?

[Spotty]

They probably have a library of some fantastic images, but why sell them as NFTs? What's wrong with just selling high quality prints of the photos so that people can actually put them up on their wall and enjoy them? 

 

I still don't understand NFTs and I hope the NFT fad dies out quicker than fidget spinners.

[Heliian]

Just now, Spotty said:

can actually put them up on their wall and enjoy them? 

I'm sure they can put their nft's up in their virtual house in the meta verse

[CT854]

Just now, Spotty said:

What's wrong with just selling high quality prints of the photos so that people can actually put them up on their wall and enjoy them? 

Journalism is a struggling industry. I imagine it's purely a financial motive here.

 

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

I still don't understand NFTs and I hope the NFT fad dies out quicker than fidget spinners.

Anything blockchain is just strangely persistent because of the persistence of the people who advocate for it. I think it also has to do with the fact that we have tangibly seen people benefit from blockchain and people wanting to get in on it too. I honestly think it was too late to stop NFTs before they were even a thing, just because of the mystique and grandeur crypto has. It's survived a massive crash already, and their advocates don't seem to be going anywhere yet. As much as I (and many others) like to mock NFTs, the people who do believe in them, really believe in them.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, DildorTheDecent said:

*right-click*

"Save Image As"

 

ez

PrtSc

Crop to desired dimension

Save as...

 

This bullshit of making infinite resources finite needs to die NOW, otherwise some dumbass will think of making games limited and hiking their prices with excuse of "demand". Then we know what will happen with asshole scalpers hoarding this shit and selling it with quadruple price. NFT's have to be the single dumbest thing invented, right after crypto mining fuckery.

[jagdtigger]

*yawn*
And ppl wonder why i said and still say that crypto* needs to be outlawed ASAP.....

 

(* cryptocurrency/blockchain/whatever iteration of the same thing)

[BuckGup]

Holy shit the members of the LTT forum have no idea how decentralized finance and NFTs work. It's sad to see so many choose to live in ignorance than learn about the technology. You don't have to like it but posting things like save as, it's a fad, and so on makes you look absolutely brainless

[jagdtigger]

If it looks like a scam, smell like a scam, even sounds like a scam, well it  is a scam. Dont care what fancy buzzwords are littered around it.

[HarryNyquist]

NFTs are 100% a scam. If you don't agree and you're typing a reply to this calling me brainless or ignorant, congratulations!

 

You're the mark for the scam.

 

People are going to get decentralized currency centralized because the scammers are using it as money laundering and you've fallen for their drivel, hook, line, and sinker.

[Arika]

As an "artist" : fuck NFTs

[DildorTheDecent]

37 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

posting things like save as, it's a fad, and so on makes you look absolutely brainless

cope and seethe

[poochyena]

Quote

This Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of a Jewish settler challenging Israeli security officers in the West Bank settlement of Amona, Feb. 1, 2006, will be among the first NFTs available on AP’s NFT marketplace.

Selling photos, especially as an nft where people are likely buying it in hopes to get rich quick, of people suffering true oppression and extreme hardships is incredibly bad taste. Photojournalism is great and people should be paid for it, but they shouldn't then sell the photos for as part of a get rich quick scheme. This is just profiting off other people's misery.

[AnonymousGuy]

I spent 15 minutes a couple days ago trying to learn how you own a digital image or how it relates to crypto.  

 

I still don't understand it. It sounds like at some point you're relying on a "central authority" to tell you who actually bought the damn thing and then that seems to defeat the point.

[sof006]

I think this whole NFT thing is stupid, I don't get why you would want to pay money to digitally own an image. Its not the same as owning an original painting for example that there physically is only one of in the entire world for example. 

[poochyena]

8 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I spent 15 minutes a couple days ago trying to learn how you own a digital image or how it relates to crypto.  

 

I still don't understand it. It sounds like at some point you're relying on a "central authority" to tell you who actually bought the damn thing and then that seems to defeat the point.

NFTs aren't owning an image, its owning a copy of it. Its like buying a book and having the author sign it. The book is effectively the same as every other copy, and by buying the book and paying for the signature, you don't own the copyright, but you own that specific uniquely signed copy.

[Moonzy]

5 hours ago, sof006 said:

Its not the same as owning an original painting for example that there physically is only one of in the entire world for example. 

First of all, disclaimer:

Spoiler

I don't, and probably won't, own any NFT, unless it becomes a normal part of society, if ever

But I understand why people want to do it and I respect that

 

To answer this question (based on my understanding), you're not buying the image, you're buying the recognition of ownership of the image on the Blockchain, if that makes sense

"Save image as..." is not buying the recognition of ownership, it is simply having a copy of that photo, which some people may confuse it with actually owning the photo. You don't own the recognition of ownership of that image on the Blockchain, you simply own a copy of the image.

 

So tl;dr, you can have plenty of copy of an image but the being the owner of that image is unique, according to the Blockchain

 

This is my understanding of it though, which may entirely be wrong, and someone can correct me if I am

 

My thoughts on the news:

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

I don't see an issue. If people are stupid enough want to buy them, let them.

This, plus, I'd respect people who are involved, no matter what I think of them

 

Personally, I think NFT as one way to actually own digital goods, the concept itself is fine, but the execution of the current NFT system may be questionable (I haven't looked much into it, because frankly, I don't care that much about it)

But I can definitely see where the "save image as" meme comes from

[AnonymousGuy]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

NFTs aren't owning an image, its owning a copy of it. Its like buying a book and having the author sign it. The book is effectively the same as every other copy, and by buying the book and paying for the signature, you don't own the copyright, but you own that specific uniquely signed copy.

But what does "own" mean?  If I have a book I have an object I can wave around and point to the signature.  What am I getting with an NFT that proves I paid for it and prevents someone else claiming they did?

[poochyena]

13 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

But what does "own" mean?  If I have a book I have an object I can wave around and point to the signature.  What am I getting with an NFT that proves I paid for it and prevents someone else claiming they did?

A signature in the form of a url. Similar to how you "own" https://linustechtips.com/profile/226164-anonymousguy/ Someone could copy and download the page, and you don't own the server hosting the page, but you effectively own the page.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Moonzy said:

 

 

Personally, I think NFT as one way to actually own digital goods, the concept itself is fine, but the execution of the current NFT system may be questionable (I haven't looked much into it, because frankly, I don't care that much about it)

But I can definitely see where the "save image as" meme comes from

You don't own anything involved with a NFT. The closest realworld analogy would be like this:

 

You go to subway, you order a veggie sandwich, lettuce, tomato, onion, cucumber. You get your sub, and a paper receipt. You take a picture of the sandwich, and the receipt, and put it on eBay. Someone buys the photo and receipt, and you email the photo, but send them the physical receipt.

 

Now, there is nothing stopping anyone from going to ANY Subway and ordering the exact same sandwich configuration. But nobody will be able to produce the exact same sandwich, and thus can not duplicate the photo without having the original photo. If you sell someone the receipt, even if you ate the sandwich, now the photo is the only way to have that sandwich, but only one person can have the receipt at a time.

 

So ask yourself. Which part of this has value? The photo, or the receipt? The receipt is the only thing telling the buyer that it's one-of-a-kind, just like "collectors certificates" on actual collectables. The paper it's printed on is worthless, but that's the part that actually contains the "value", not the photo, which can be duplicated without effort or expense. For the vast majority of people out there, a rarity assigned to a digital good is just plain stupid. 

 

Digital goods are infinitely duplicatable. Rarity assigned to a digital good is absurd.

 

 

[Moonzy]

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You don't own anything involved with a NFT.

You get recognized as the owner of said item, according to the blockchain.

anyone can "own" something but the blockchain only recognises one owner, and if enough people recognize that as fact then it may as well be so, which is why some would say those people are just "circle jerking". It's "circle jerking" until it becomes the norm and everyone does it, I guess.

 

9 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Which part of this has value? The photo, or the receipt?

value is an interesting concept as there's no proper answer to it, what may be of no value to me and you may not be the same to other people

in your example, the value depends on how the buyer assigns it, but in a broader sense, they both have value since they both got bought/sold

 

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

just like "collectors certificates" on actual collectables. The paper it's printed on is worthless, but that's the part that actually contains the "value", not the photo, which can be duplicated without effort or expense.

yes, but as mentioned, you're purchasing the recognition of owning the collectible
blockchain is just another way to store recognition of ownership, either for digital or physical goods.

 

17 minutes ago, Kisai said:

For the vast majority of people out there, a rarity assigned to a digital good is just plain stupid. 

rarity of a photo? absurd idea, copy and paste infinitely

being uniquely recognised as the owner of said image? i can see the idea behind that

 

for example, Eminem recently bought an NFT Ape that resembles him (for half a million dollar, jesus, but let's not go there as value is a subjective topic)

we can all copy and share that image, but when it comes to the question "whose picture is this?", most people would probably answer "Eminem" if they heard of the news.

we all technically have a copy of it, but we arent recognised as the owner, by public perception (and in this case, the NFT blockchain as well)

 

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Digital goods are infinitely duplicatable. Rarity assigned to a digital good is absurd.

This has nothing to do with recognition of ownership so i would say it's nothing to do with NFT (though it's a common misconception, as i said)
but rarity can be created, either though software license keys for softwares, or loot box rates (or gacha games) for game items, are the two example i can think of from the top of my mind

your subway analogy is a tad confusing, so i couldn't quite follow if im being honest.

I would say it's more analogous to me owning my house. Who says I own my house?
The government? We all agree that I own the house because the govenment says so, right?
So, we're in the end still recognising that I own the house because it's the accepted fact by things that people believe in. And blockchain can be that "thing", imo
 

But it only works if it's recognised and accepted, which is what NFT is going through now. Part of society accepts it while the others thinks it's just a bunch of people going looney.

[Kisai]

20 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

 

 

This has nothing to do with recognition of ownership so i would say it's nothing to do with NFT (though it's a common misconception, as i said)
but rarity can be created, either though software license keys for softwares, or loot box rates (or gacha games) for game items, are the two example i can think of from the top of my mind

your subway analogy is a tad confusing, so i couldn't quite follow if im being honest.

I would say it's more analogous to me owning my house. Who says I own my house?
The government? We all agree that I own the house because the govenment says so, right?
So, we're in the end still recognising that I own the house because it's the accepted fact by things that people believe in. And blockchain can be that "thing", imo
 

But it only works if it's recognised and accepted, which is what NFT is going through now. Part of society accepts it while the others thinks it's just a bunch of people going looney.

 

 

License keys are different. They're not about creating rarity, they're about ensuring you paid for the thing in the first place. Microsoft isn't producing CD's of Windows 10 one per key. They just aren't. Back with Windows 95/98/ME/2K/XP/Vista/7 and 8 every key was unique, but they were assigned to the physical computer (OEM), or to the retail copy. 8/8.1/10/11 don't even produce physical copies anymore. If you want to run a 20 year old copy of Windows, that's on you, and the key will still work to install it, but the activation server will be long gone at some point (which is what happened with Adobe CS2.) There's nothing stopping anyone from installing a pirated copy of Windows other than the key, if they never install it, they still have it, key or not.

 

I used the subway comparison, because the product made, is only made once, despite it being something anyone can make. The photo may or may not have artistic value, which is the problem with the "bored ape"'s, they lack any artistic value. I can change one third of a pixel and re-upload it to opensee and not have to pay anyone, and can sell it again and again by just changing one third of a pixel. That's not artistic value, that is procedurally generating trash and hoping people who don't value it for it's artistic merit will trade it like stocks instead of actually wanting to own the thing.

 

Here's the thing. NFT's as presented, are not recognized, nor valuable by anyone. The backlash against it has been substantial, especially in gaming and digital art, because gamers and game publishers see it as a way to make lootboxes into one-of-a-kind collectables and turn the games into a lootbox from hell, now not only is that SSR rarity thing 0.1%, but the first person who gets it, is the only one who can have it, and when that person gets bored with the game, that item is now permanently gone from the game. So in a sense, gacha/lootboxes become lotteries/raffles. Only one person can win the jackpot/big-prize. It's solidifying the fact that they are gambling.

 

Artists are absolutely irate at how people are able to steal their published artwork, and thieves take the image from deviantart and put it on opensea, make potentially thousands off it, and the artist sees nothing, and can't even force opensea to turn over anything. That's the problem with decentralized "anything", is that once that transaction has happened, there's no way to undo it. 

 

NFT's may be the one thing that ultimately destroys blockchain.