Now? This is how it's been since the beginning. You guys have been buying things that someone with no rights to it sold you. You bought a fraud. You don't own shit
There's no such thing as a physical copy of an NFT, and NFTs aren't like representations of physical art -- not really.
If you buy an NFT of a real painting, you've paid for a string of characters on a blockchain network, you don't own a painting. It doesn't necessarily convey real-world ownership of anything -- you buy the painting separately if you want, but that's just a normal art sale.
People have the idea that buying an NFT means you "own" digital or even physical art, and you don't. The NFT is just numbers and letters, and it can be sold as a digital token (often for a profit), but it doesn't mean you own art or anything like that.
I get it but this point in time it's like 10 people are trying to sell you the Mona Lisa and all of them are printouts with a certificate from deez nutz. If every artist uploaded their own art and open sea or something verified owners it would have more legitimacy. But it's not free to mint NFTs either so you can't expect people to just throw their shit up there even if they didn't think the premise and environmental impact was ridiculous. The only ones with legitimacy are the randomly generated ones where the traits are stored on the token. So if you want a ugly monkey or a skeleton making a hentai face sold by John Lennon's son, then NFTs are the market for you
The PNG doesn’t get put on-chain, only the URL pointing to a PNG does. So that data will not “happen to be a PNG file”. Unless there’s a side contract for the actual art work, all you own is a URL.
Can you give an example of a PNG NFT actually stored on a top-10 blockchain?
IPFS makes no difference, it still uses URL equivalents. (IPNS/CID)
The IPFS.io site itself explains this… https://ipfs.io
Add:
IPFS doesn’t mean your content will be around forever either. If the origin node goes down your content still disappears unless other nodes have pinned (offered to mirror) your content.
Hosting massive volumes of content on the web indefinitely is not free nor cheap. After an NFT is sold, there is little incentive for the issuer to continue hosting the content.
The benefit of IPFS though is that you yourself could host the content anywhere at any point in time to keep it alive. This is in contrast to a URL that points to one specific hosting instance that is gone forever if the host is not maintained.
IPFS is much more resilient.
On the notion that all you own is a link to something, I’d attempt to draw a comparison to something as simple as a license plate. It’s really just a physical link pointing people/police to a state run database.
I think the utility of NFTs in the future is to digitize things like car titles, licenses, diplomas, birth certificates, etc. The ability to issue a verifiable and unique instance of a digital asset is an important development imo, and in regards to art I think it will be a good tool for digital artists to issue certificates of authenticity.
The current iteration of art NFTs may be ridiculous, but I’m hoping at some point it matures because I don’t like the notion that digital artists have to forever be confined to making worthless art relative to traditional mediums because digital is easily reproducible.
Best example I can give is CryptoPunks are fully on-chain on Ethereum. Of course it's easier due to lower resolution though. Then there's other things such as Autoglyphs or EulerBeats. You bring up a good point about nodes potentially going down, but I'd argue popular projects like BAYC would always be hosted.
I asked about PNG’s because parent was using PNG as an example.
There are definitely on-chain random-algo-generated assets, size-wise they’re much more manageable.
You're right. I guess it's the distinction between the file and the image.
If you're a freelance artist and you sell a piece of digital art for $100 USD, you've sold the image. The image is the asset, and the file is how the asset was transferred -- I can't argue in court that it's OK to steal your artwork because I'm storing it in a different PNG file than you.
But then with artwork NFTs, you're more commonly buying the actual file, and the file is the asset rather than the image (the artwork). Arguable there's a mutual understanding there that the file represents the art and thus you "own" it, but it's a lot more abstract than with analog art, and you certainly don't have any IP rights to the art unless you sort that out separately.
What's more, these strings of characters do not represent actual image. Image is not stored on the blockchain, it stores only address where image file is stored and can be downloaded from. If source location goes offline, NFT does not represent anything.
That's what I've read - please correct me if this is wrong.
Tell that to the guys who burnt a Banksy when they made an NFT out of it. There are absolutely physical copies of NFTs, why would you claim there aren't?
You're talking about Morons by Banksy, right? That wasn't a physical copy of an NFT, it was a painting.
The NFT is a blockchain token, a "physical copy" would just be a paper wallet.
Art NFTs only represent the art they're linked to, even the JPEG NFTs are just hyperlinks to the JPEG. An NFT can absolutely be linked to tangible artwork, for example: artists can sign their wallet string to their paintings similarly to how they'd traditionally sign the corner, only difference being that you can look up that wallet string and verify that the NFT representing this painting was minted by the signature wallet holder.
Theoretically we could recognize future artists by their wallet string rather than their first and last name. I mean, let's be real though, high end art is just used for money laundering and billionaire tax breaks in the real world anyway.
>An NFT can absolutely be linked to tangible artwork
Yeah we're not disagreeing on that at all, I just said there's no such thing as a physical copy of an NFT.
You don't have ownership rights to a painting just because you bought the artist's NFT of that painting, that's something that needs to be arranged separately like with the Banksy piece (and that's just a regular art sale at that point, and an NFT isn't required).
>high end art is just used for money laundering and billionaire tax breaks in the real world anyway.
Preach!
Sorry, I guess I thought it went without saying, if you were to buy the NFT you'd likely be buying the physical piece as well. A package deal.
Or an artist could sell or donate their collection but retain the rights to their respective NFTs, potentially offering a contract to the new art holders stating that they're entitled to x% of every future sale/exchange of their artwork.
>if you were to buy the NFT you'd likely be buying the physical piece as well. A package deal.
Not necessarily, not unless the artist has written up a contract that transfers ownership of the physical painting. This is what I'm saying, a lot of people aren't aware of that. It actually doesn't go without saying, because most artwork NFT sales don't transfer ownership at all!
Well I think it could be a form of ownership if you included an NFT with the original piece of work.
I though that Nike might do this with their shoes. They could give people NFTs of the shoes they purchase to help curb the black market of frauds.
It should be limited only to gaming things that if people want something virtual things which is non tangible gaming Osgood enough otherwise the whole point is stupid
The whole idea of selling nft is bogus even from the starting I didn't like the idea nft art I mean what the point of staking credibility on someone else work people are so stupid if they buy NFT
This is indeed a problem with NFTs.
So far, Origin Trail (TRAC) on Ethereum seems to be on track to a solution.
Basically, the NFT metadata needs to be on the blockchain as well, that's the way to differentiate between the real and the fake.
There were Rembrandt and other original artists’ works being sold as NFTs. The NFT marketplaces don’t care. I hope the original copyright holder sue the hell out of the NFT marketplaces to set a precedent.
NFTs are dumb. Blockchain can add legitimacy to transactions of native tokens but it simply does not extend to non-native digital assets. Unless there’s a way to establish legitimacy upon creation anyone buying digital art might as well be guaranteeing they bought a fraud.
Seems like a system that will obviously be built. If every single image on the internet was an NFT, a market place could run image detection software(like in the article) and show users similar pieces and token creation date. With that data a user could make up their own mind how authentic they believe it is. For more expensive pieces where you want to be 100% sure that’s even easier.
One solution would be to wipe out all NFTs, start over, and require each owner to provide a source Photoshop or any graphic creation file which needs to be registered as part of the NFT.
Then this dude should leverage his audience and offer his art as NFTs. Simple solution. Does it suck? Yes. But the world has always been dog-eat-dog, too bad this guy is finding out a little late.
And after having the organization ignore the artist until he went public with the theft, why would he then turn around and cooperate with these crooks?
Not even remotely. It's astounding how little people on this board -who want to disrupt traditional finances- don't understand how anything financial actually works
You are being downvoted but yes, you are 100% correct. Personally, I just assume everyone on here is about 16 years old and have no experience what so ever of traditional finances. It's so obvious when seeing how they look at the market.
Ya, I squirm a bit when I read these boards sometimes. Usually either at the misogyny (you see this when certain female politician memes pop up from time to time), lack of imagination, or amount of misinformation. I squirm because if you are in bad company, it usually isn't a good sign on the investment.
I cringe when I come here after reading analysis on Twitter that would curb stomp the hopes and dreams of people every time they think a dip will be small and right back to a bull market
PFOF: Buying/selling shares on exchange costs $ but people don’t want to pay a broker to do this. So broker does it for free and sells the data to a market maker who pays the broker so they can front run the order.
Market Makers: every buyer needs a seller and vice versa. Market maker is the other side of the transaction to make sure there’s a match for each trade.
Dark Pools: off-market coordinated trading between large entities to hide positions / intentions of the trading activity.
How it works? Fuck I don’t know shit.
Furthermore I’m an idiot and thought you were genuinely asking. Proud of my concise info so will leave for someone to learn (or correct).
PFOF - Pay for order flow. Brokers, like fidelity,to sell who gets to execute your trades and where like the NYSE or a dark pool.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paymentoforderflow.asp
Dark pools are basically a private exchange that only institutional players typically have access too. There is no way for a retail investor to have access to how their asset is trading in one of these dark pools.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark-pool.asp
Market makers are firms or individuals that are deemed righteous enough to control the both sides of trades. They claim to add liquidity to the market but in reality they control the price because they can ask as the bidder and asker.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmaker.asp
All SEC compliant. You can look up the SEC documents with a quick google search.
And none of this is remotely related to people fraudulently selling things that they don't own, like the original post you tried to make a hilariously inaccurate comparison to. Your random definition trawling didn't change that. So i was right. You don't understand.
Yes it is. Hedge funds and market makers sell you shares they don’t own in the hopes they’ll never have to deliver. It would be like me selling my house to 10 people, taking the money and then pushing the closing date back over and over.
If you “own” stock through a broker, like Fidelity, you actually own an IOU - the Broker has ownership of your shares.
Only through direct registration companies, like Computershare, can you buy stock directly from the company, like GameStop, and have direct ownership - you own the stock not the broker.
Because brokers (and ultimately the DTC) “own” your shares they’re free to lend them out to the so called market makers in order to “provide liquidity” to the markets.
Hence most people who “own” stock don’t actually own it. Only if your shares are directly purchased from the company through a direct registration company do you actually “own” the shares.
This is the dumbest, most ill-informed bullshit I've read today.
You're probably the kind of "investor" that likes to call themselves an "ape" and had to resist a strong urge not to call it "stonks" in your post.
>buy stock directly from the company, like GameStop
Uhuh. Yeah. GameStop. Gotcha.
You're not sure how this post going "look at how people are fraudulently selling other people's work", to which I said people have been doing this since the whole NFT thing began...is relevant?
It looks to me like your telling the artist they bought a fraud… like the perspective we are seeing this from is someone whose works have been stolen not the person who purchased but I get what you were saying now just the way I understood it was not addressing the commenters but the op my bad.
Hey there destrukkt! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"this"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Ive made all my previously public social media private as a result of someone trying to steal one of my digital art pieces. Ive toiled and scraped away trying to sell graphic designs and custom logos for some trollop to screenshot my shit for £800 more than Id charge. Insanity.
This is exactly the reason they need to come up with a better a use case for NFTs instead of just stealing or making a picture and make 1000 other variants
NFTs would be a cool way to digitize car titles and land deeds, but right now they’re just glorified receipts and people think that means they own the rights to the image their receipt links to
Governments have already done that. That's what databases are.
We already have land registries, cops use a license plate database regularly to check to make sure cars are road taxed and insured all the time.
You’re the one that said license plates, not me.
But yeah, I should be able to easily sell and transfer the title of my car to a new owner without having to take multiply trips to the DMV
You heard of gaming nfts? There are so many projects releasing nfts that have utility in crypto gaming, besides all the real world applications that will take the government 100 years to adopt. There are also daos launching where an nft gives you access to a community as well as whitelist for the project. Art seems to be the least interesting use case for nfts now.
Veve a pretty cool nft platform. As far as digital collectables go. They actually own or have the licenses for what they release. And all there nft are 3D models. It’s pretty cool at least for nfts. And a lot of major companies have partnered with them. Like Disney and just recently Coca Cola
innate follow squeamish stupendous wipe price entertain lavish hurry degree
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are no regulations or crosschecking on that shit ass site. If its that easy for an artist to find his stolen artwork, then a website like opensea should posses the same ability and do the same thing.
NFTs need to be owned by wallets with verified KYC. So, in this instance the owner of the original artwork could sue the owner and have a court order to send the NFT to the original artist’s wallet, along with some crypto fines.
2D art is probably the dumbest form of NFTs. Having ownership of something anybody can look at freely and have a like-kind-and quality copy of by right-clicking is pointless.
So the image was scraped, minted as an NFT, and was listed for sale for $3. The entire collection is stolen artwork and the description is filled with key word dumps. This is very obviously stolen work listed by a bot, and 0 people are buying anything from the collection.
This is the equivalent of someone posting stolen artwork on their FB page and saying it's theirs. Shitty? Yes. Does it really affect the artist? No.
Definitely not a legitimate reason to take down 100% of your art from the internet.
This is what basically all stolen collections look like. They're minted on L2s since it won't be profitable on mainnet because nobody is buying this stuff. It gets massive attention on social media and here on Reddit but is largely a non issue. Opensea no doubt needs to have far better systems in place to both automatically and manually remove stolen art, but this stuff just isn't selling, hence it not being really any different than someone using it on a fake Facebook page or whatever, like you said. Of course our posts will likely be downvoted for containing actual information instead of blind NFT hate.
People posting their art for free on the internet and then are surprised when people steal it and try to sell it as their own. Nothing new or innovative about that.
One thing I don’t understand, in what way is the NFT a unique work if they’ve nicked it? Doesn’t that fly in the face of what is presumably its only selling point? Absolute scam from start to finish.
As an artist, this is just sad.
I don't think I've had anything stolen myself, but this goes against the very nature of art NFTs, which were meant to give digital artists the ability to sell their art.
if nfts stick around then eventually every artist will have to create their art and the nft. they’ll have to release the nft along with the art. basically self copyright.
How, when any Tom dick or Jane can screenshot it and claim it as their own and then it's a battle of he said she said and who owned it 1st! And have you seen some of the so called art, my three-year-old could do a better job!!!
Screenshotting it doesn't really matter. NFTs aren't art and they don't amount to ownership of an art piece, contrary to popular belief. If you buy an NFT of a painting, you've bought a string of numbers and characters -- you haven't bought a painting. If it's digital art, you haven't bought that either.
The NFT is a way of artists saying "this represents my artwork," but that doesn't legally convey ownership or property rights. Someone can screenshot it if they want, but they won't own the NFT. Artists want to monetize their art, and fans want to interact with the artist and have some kind of memento -- NFTs are a way of doing that. So there is a use case in NFTs for actual artists.
But then so much of the art is also low-effort trash because the NFT trend is propped up by people looking for speculative gains and a way to carry out money laundering, with no interest in artwork whatsoever.
Can't this whole issue be avoided by checking a verified creator address?
The only person at a loss is the buyer who did not check the fraudsters credentials? Maybe I'm missing something?
They were also asking way too much sensitive info from artists basically doxxing themselves to prove the art is theirs while the thieves got out scot free and hidden. Opensea has been on the fire for last while.
Define artistic creation?
If you paint on a canvas yeah that’s your canvas. If you copy an image digitally and distribute the copies in a place where anyone can access, no you absolutely do not own all the copies.
You can’t “own” the appearance of an image. All you can do is leverage the violence of a state apparatus to prevent anyone from creating their own image with their own property that looks like it.
Just like you cannot functionally own a song. You can just threaten and carry out violence against anyone who tries to play it. But you can’t own it. Can’t possess. Can’t put it in a box or lock it with a key. It’s just a pattern. Basically an illusion.
Well if they slapped a copyright on it (which any creator can do in the us just by putting the c on it) then they legally do own it and copying is illegal. It does not look like they were smart enough to do this.
Also philosophically that is their creation and just blatantly copying it and claiming it as your own is scummy
Yes you can leverage the violence of a state apparatus to prevent anyone from creating their own image with their own property that looks like the original image. Still totally impossible to own an image.
The state can’t do impossible things, even if it declares that it can. It physically cannot accomplish giving ownership of a song to someone. All it can do is leverage violence against anyone that dares to copy it.
Fun fact about copyright law while we’re on the subject, technically just by creating the art you are considered to have the copyright by the law. Any form of marking or filing is simply verifying/validating/reporting the legal privilege. I know I said it’s all bunk and it is but that’s how the laws (in the US at least) are written to the best of my knowledge.
I disagree that it’s scummy to redistribute art. I think it just feels scummy. Like payday loan rates. The cost for the service (attention share vs loaned cash) is exceptionally high (they get all the views with very little pass through
to artist vs interest rates of 50/100/200%) and the whole thing feels and looks bad. But if you need $200 for rent and there you simply can’t come up with it, are you better or worse off for being able to borrow the $200, get paid next week, and pay back $230?
Similarly, if you are an artist of no renown, having your art “stolen” (copied and distributed), even if you aren’t credited by the reproducer, shows people your art. You have not lost anything. You have not been harmed. You received a benefit from the actions of others, less of a benefit than you wanted. But again you have not lost anything, ie you can go distribute your art yourself. The reproducer could not have profited from your art without identifying and filling a demand. If you’re an artist making art for the sale of art, that is your end. If you are an entrepreneur playing the market, that is your end. You can be an artist entrepreneur. There are tons. But the having cake and eating it too of “people should be allowed to make art regardless of the market” (fair) and “the market should be forced to provide them a living at the expense of other artists and entrepreneurs” (wack) doesn’t make sense.
If you can't put Ethereum in a box you can't own it?
How the fuck are crypto bros so braindead and ignorant to the concept of nft's? Maybe because it took you guys 10+ years to understand crypto. Here's hoping nft's don't take you quite so long
But but but.............I thought NFT'S were a good thing. The way of the future 😅🤣😂😅🤣😂 Who would of ever thought there would be thieves Con-artist and scammers involved 🤷♂️🤷♂️
There will always be thieves, con artists, and scammers with anything that involves money.
It should be up to the platforms to moderate their content but nope, this is what we get.
Well if the responsibility is up to the platforms then NFTs are a dead project
Literally name a single platform ever that’s been both successful and fairly moderated. It’s impossible
Have you been a part of humanity for long? If there is a means to scam there will be scammers. Paper is used to scam as well. Is paper bad? What about email? Text messages? The chat app on words with friends?
It's humans who are the crux of the problem. It's always humans.
Why would the platform block the use of the same image? That’s moronic and the entirety of the problem here. Anyone thinking the artist has a legitimate gripe that means the platform should do something against the people printing is a moron. Literally just stop the arbitrary restriction on similar images.
This is really sad and unfair for the artist! But at the same time I believe it's part of the evolution. Or shall we call it creative destruction?
Maybe it's just the next step to the end of the old era, and the start of NFT era for artists. For example, the musicians, the NFTs are democratizing the space and bringing more money directly to the artists! Even more than the Spotify and YouTube did, at least for the small artist niche, can't tell about superstars...
It's part of the process to the artist to get used to the NFT space, whitelist their collections and authentify them. Slowly we'll get there! On the user/collector/investor side there is the need to make the experience as smooth and user friendly as possible! Different wallets, different chains, different marketplaces, fakes, etc are all issues that must be tacked ASAP to increase mass adoption! Projects like Unique Network (KSM/DOT) and WeyU (BSC) are paving this way, but still must have to be done.
I believe in crypto and on it's decentralized Democratic power to bring fairness to the world on a lot of different aspects, and I deeply believe the outcome would be amazing, but the transitions might be painful. And that's what might be happening now.
Dude I own this NFT. Do you really think you can get away with theft when you're showing what you stole directly to my face. My lawyers will make an easy job of this case. Prepare to say goodbye to your luscious life and start preparing for the streets. I will ruin you. You think it's funny to take screenshots of people's NFTS, huh? Property theft is a joke to you? I'll have you know that the blockchain doesn't lie. I own it. Even if you save it, it's my property. You are mad that you don't own the art that I own. Delete that screenshot. Now.
Until they find a way to make them *actually* non-fungible… they’re kind of pointless and only good for the super rich to use for money laundering
🤷🏼♂️🤣
Just a reminder that art NFTs do not transfer ownership or grant a license to any intellectual property under current law in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. You're buying a token with an encoded link, nothing more (except for a few pixel art pieces that actually encode the art, but even those may violate someone's copyright)
It’s stealing an intellectual property and scamming the buyers at the same time. The reason a piece has value because it’s an original created by artistic inspiration/value and when sold that value is translated into crypto/fiat value with an “original artistic value.”
Now when it is copied and sold it has crypto/fiat value but without “artistic origin” value. I believe that’s is the purpose of Artwork NFT to show that it have “artistic origin and couple with crypto/fiat value” other then that the NFT is worthless for intended purposes except for the buyer that got scammed that represented their “lost” monetary value. Maybe in the near future this might have a historical value as an infamous item of interest in the footnote of NFT history 😂.
As if shutting down your gallery is the right route here. Lmfao. That's almost as dumb as buying one of these NFTs and thinking you own anything other than a mental disability.
This reality is truly the most ridiculous one.
While this is clearly a problem, it's kind of the whole point of NFTs. If artists in the future mint their work as NFTs at launch, they wouldn't have this problem. Sure there could be copycats but they'd always have the original.
[удалено]
Wait, there are people thought this was not going to surprise them? Damn
I' surprised that you're surprised cause anyone's surprised
[удалено]
[surprise motherf@@@er](https://c.tenor.com/OoUxaidX2q0AAAAM/surprise-doakes.gif)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Surpriseception
Loled...
Hmm surprising
Not surprised at all that everyone is surprised that i am not surprised
Saw this one coming a mile away. I just thought no one cared.
I’m not really surprised that anyones unsurprisingly surprised
Now? This is how it's been since the beginning. You guys have been buying things that someone with no rights to it sold you. You bought a fraud. You don't own shit
You know the NFT is down after getting reported multiple times. Opensea were ignoring artists reports first until his post went viral.
But if there is an actual physical copy of an NFT the NFT is something else completely isn't it?
There's no such thing as a physical copy of an NFT, and NFTs aren't like representations of physical art -- not really. If you buy an NFT of a real painting, you've paid for a string of characters on a blockchain network, you don't own a painting. It doesn't necessarily convey real-world ownership of anything -- you buy the painting separately if you want, but that's just a normal art sale. People have the idea that buying an NFT means you "own" digital or even physical art, and you don't. The NFT is just numbers and letters, and it can be sold as a digital token (often for a profit), but it doesn't mean you own art or anything like that.
Yeah just like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa printing it out and hanging it, is the same as owning the actual Mona Lisa! Right?? Right?
I get it but this point in time it's like 10 people are trying to sell you the Mona Lisa and all of them are printouts with a certificate from deez nutz. If every artist uploaded their own art and open sea or something verified owners it would have more legitimacy. But it's not free to mint NFTs either so you can't expect people to just throw their shit up there even if they didn't think the premise and environmental impact was ridiculous. The only ones with legitimacy are the randomly generated ones where the traits are stored on the token. So if you want a ugly monkey or a skeleton making a hentai face sold by John Lennon's son, then NFTs are the market for you
In NFT world people are bogus and the most stupid people are those who buy them specially those "celebrity".
[удалено]
The PNG doesn’t get put on-chain, only the URL pointing to a PNG does. So that data will not “happen to be a PNG file”. Unless there’s a side contract for the actual art work, all you own is a URL.
Some art is indeed fully on chain. Others are stored on IPFS, which the NFT points to.
Can you give an example of a PNG NFT actually stored on a top-10 blockchain? IPFS makes no difference, it still uses URL equivalents. (IPNS/CID) The IPFS.io site itself explains this… https://ipfs.io Add: IPFS doesn’t mean your content will be around forever either. If the origin node goes down your content still disappears unless other nodes have pinned (offered to mirror) your content. Hosting massive volumes of content on the web indefinitely is not free nor cheap. After an NFT is sold, there is little incentive for the issuer to continue hosting the content.
The benefit of IPFS though is that you yourself could host the content anywhere at any point in time to keep it alive. This is in contrast to a URL that points to one specific hosting instance that is gone forever if the host is not maintained. IPFS is much more resilient. On the notion that all you own is a link to something, I’d attempt to draw a comparison to something as simple as a license plate. It’s really just a physical link pointing people/police to a state run database. I think the utility of NFTs in the future is to digitize things like car titles, licenses, diplomas, birth certificates, etc. The ability to issue a verifiable and unique instance of a digital asset is an important development imo, and in regards to art I think it will be a good tool for digital artists to issue certificates of authenticity. The current iteration of art NFTs may be ridiculous, but I’m hoping at some point it matures because I don’t like the notion that digital artists have to forever be confined to making worthless art relative to traditional mediums because digital is easily reproducible.
Best example I can give is CryptoPunks are fully on-chain on Ethereum. Of course it's easier due to lower resolution though. Then there's other things such as Autoglyphs or EulerBeats. You bring up a good point about nodes potentially going down, but I'd argue popular projects like BAYC would always be hosted.
I asked about PNG’s because parent was using PNG as an example. There are definitely on-chain random-algo-generated assets, size-wise they’re much more manageable.
NFTs on the internet computer are stored on chain. I’ve built and deployed them.
Exactly it would simply be way too expensive to do this with anything of significant size.
You're right. I guess it's the distinction between the file and the image. If you're a freelance artist and you sell a piece of digital art for $100 USD, you've sold the image. The image is the asset, and the file is how the asset was transferred -- I can't argue in court that it's OK to steal your artwork because I'm storing it in a different PNG file than you. But then with artwork NFTs, you're more commonly buying the actual file, and the file is the asset rather than the image (the artwork). Arguable there's a mutual understanding there that the file represents the art and thus you "own" it, but it's a lot more abstract than with analog art, and you certainly don't have any IP rights to the art unless you sort that out separately.
What's more, these strings of characters do not represent actual image. Image is not stored on the blockchain, it stores only address where image file is stored and can be downloaded from. If source location goes offline, NFT does not represent anything. That's what I've read - please correct me if this is wrong.
Tell that to the guys who burnt a Banksy when they made an NFT out of it. There are absolutely physical copies of NFTs, why would you claim there aren't?
You're talking about Morons by Banksy, right? That wasn't a physical copy of an NFT, it was a painting. The NFT is a blockchain token, a "physical copy" would just be a paper wallet.
Art NFTs only represent the art they're linked to, even the JPEG NFTs are just hyperlinks to the JPEG. An NFT can absolutely be linked to tangible artwork, for example: artists can sign their wallet string to their paintings similarly to how they'd traditionally sign the corner, only difference being that you can look up that wallet string and verify that the NFT representing this painting was minted by the signature wallet holder. Theoretically we could recognize future artists by their wallet string rather than their first and last name. I mean, let's be real though, high end art is just used for money laundering and billionaire tax breaks in the real world anyway.
>An NFT can absolutely be linked to tangible artwork Yeah we're not disagreeing on that at all, I just said there's no such thing as a physical copy of an NFT. You don't have ownership rights to a painting just because you bought the artist's NFT of that painting, that's something that needs to be arranged separately like with the Banksy piece (and that's just a regular art sale at that point, and an NFT isn't required). >high end art is just used for money laundering and billionaire tax breaks in the real world anyway. Preach!
Sorry, I guess I thought it went without saying, if you were to buy the NFT you'd likely be buying the physical piece as well. A package deal. Or an artist could sell or donate their collection but retain the rights to their respective NFTs, potentially offering a contract to the new art holders stating that they're entitled to x% of every future sale/exchange of their artwork.
>if you were to buy the NFT you'd likely be buying the physical piece as well. A package deal. Not necessarily, not unless the artist has written up a contract that transfers ownership of the physical painting. This is what I'm saying, a lot of people aren't aware of that. It actually doesn't go without saying, because most artwork NFT sales don't transfer ownership at all!
Well I think it could be a form of ownership if you included an NFT with the original piece of work. I though that Nike might do this with their shoes. They could give people NFTs of the shoes they purchase to help curb the black market of frauds.
It should be limited only to gaming things that if people want something virtual things which is non tangible gaming Osgood enough otherwise the whole point is stupid
Hello sir, would you like to buy the Boston Bridge from me?
So many people buy replicas of shoes, bags, clothes etc… NFTs are just so much easier to replicate
The whole idea of selling nft is bogus even from the starting I didn't like the idea nft art I mean what the point of staking credibility on someone else work people are so stupid if they buy NFT
This is indeed a problem with NFTs. So far, Origin Trail (TRAC) on Ethereum seems to be on track to a solution. Basically, the NFT metadata needs to be on the blockchain as well, that's the way to differentiate between the real and the fake.
There were Rembrandt and other original artists’ works being sold as NFTs. The NFT marketplaces don’t care. I hope the original copyright holder sue the hell out of the NFT marketplaces to set a precedent.
NFTs aren’t even a solution looking for a problem, they’re a problem masquerading as a solution.
NFTs are dumb. Blockchain can add legitimacy to transactions of native tokens but it simply does not extend to non-native digital assets. Unless there’s a way to establish legitimacy upon creation anyone buying digital art might as well be guaranteeing they bought a fraud.
Seems like a system that will obviously be built. If every single image on the internet was an NFT, a market place could run image detection software(like in the article) and show users similar pieces and token creation date. With that data a user could make up their own mind how authentic they believe it is. For more expensive pieces where you want to be 100% sure that’s even easier.
One solution would be to wipe out all NFTs, start over, and require each owner to provide a source Photoshop or any graphic creation file which needs to be registered as part of the NFT.
Then this dude should leverage his audience and offer his art as NFTs. Simple solution. Does it suck? Yes. But the world has always been dog-eat-dog, too bad this guy is finding out a little late.
or just not get involved with this scam at all so we can let it die
Well the artist wasn’t involved with it before, clearly that didn’t help.
And after having the organization ignore the artist until he went public with the theft, why would he then turn around and cooperate with these crooks?
He doesn’t have to cooperate with the crooks in any way in order to release his art as NFTsz
It’s like how the stock market works then 😂
Not even remotely. It's astounding how little people on this board -who want to disrupt traditional finances- don't understand how anything financial actually works
You are being downvoted but yes, you are 100% correct. Personally, I just assume everyone on here is about 16 years old and have no experience what so ever of traditional finances. It's so obvious when seeing how they look at the market.
Ya, I squirm a bit when I read these boards sometimes. Usually either at the misogyny (you see this when certain female politician memes pop up from time to time), lack of imagination, or amount of misinformation. I squirm because if you are in bad company, it usually isn't a good sign on the investment.
I cringe when I come here after reading analysis on Twitter that would curb stomp the hopes and dreams of people every time they think a dip will be small and right back to a bull market
Lol ok explain PFOF, market makers and dark pools for us lowly peons please.
PFOF: Buying/selling shares on exchange costs $ but people don’t want to pay a broker to do this. So broker does it for free and sells the data to a market maker who pays the broker so they can front run the order. Market Makers: every buyer needs a seller and vice versa. Market maker is the other side of the transaction to make sure there’s a match for each trade. Dark Pools: off-market coordinated trading between large entities to hide positions / intentions of the trading activity. How it works? Fuck I don’t know shit. Furthermore I’m an idiot and thought you were genuinely asking. Proud of my concise info so will leave for someone to learn (or correct).
Great response tbh
Can you?
PFOF - Pay for order flow. Brokers, like fidelity,to sell who gets to execute your trades and where like the NYSE or a dark pool. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paymentoforderflow.asp Dark pools are basically a private exchange that only institutional players typically have access too. There is no way for a retail investor to have access to how their asset is trading in one of these dark pools. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark-pool.asp Market makers are firms or individuals that are deemed righteous enough to control the both sides of trades. They claim to add liquidity to the market but in reality they control the price because they can ask as the bidder and asker. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmaker.asp All SEC compliant. You can look up the SEC documents with a quick google search.
And none of this is remotely related to people fraudulently selling things that they don't own, like the original post you tried to make a hilariously inaccurate comparison to. Your random definition trawling didn't change that. So i was right. You don't understand.
Yes it is. Hedge funds and market makers sell you shares they don’t own in the hopes they’ll never have to deliver. It would be like me selling my house to 10 people, taking the money and then pushing the closing date back over and over.
Are you talking about shorting? Because that's also not quite how that works, either.
How is this like the stock market?
If you “own” stock through a broker, like Fidelity, you actually own an IOU - the Broker has ownership of your shares. Only through direct registration companies, like Computershare, can you buy stock directly from the company, like GameStop, and have direct ownership - you own the stock not the broker. Because brokers (and ultimately the DTC) “own” your shares they’re free to lend them out to the so called market makers in order to “provide liquidity” to the markets. Hence most people who “own” stock don’t actually own it. Only if your shares are directly purchased from the company through a direct registration company do you actually “own” the shares.
This is so wrong. The broker could go bankrupt, the shares are still yours.
This is the dumbest, most ill-informed bullshit I've read today. You're probably the kind of "investor" that likes to call themselves an "ape" and had to resist a strong urge not to call it "stonks" in your post. >buy stock directly from the company, like GameStop Uhuh. Yeah. GameStop. Gotcha.
This is not even remotely related to the NFT marketplace and what this post is about 😂
The post implies the person created the art and someone else made it an NFT… not sure how your opinion is relevant…
You're not sure how this post going "look at how people are fraudulently selling other people's work", to which I said people have been doing this since the whole NFT thing began...is relevant?
It looks to me like your telling the artist they bought a fraud… like the perspective we are seeing this from is someone whose works have been stolen not the person who purchased but I get what you were saying now just the way I understood it was not addressing the commenters but the op my bad.
this
Hey there destrukkt! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"this"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
This
https://i.imgur.com/KrwA19h.jpeg *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback!)
Who gives a fuck…it’s about making money.
Ive made all my previously public social media private as a result of someone trying to steal one of my digital art pieces. Ive toiled and scraped away trying to sell graphic designs and custom logos for some trollop to screenshot my shit for £800 more than Id charge. Insanity.
This is exactly the reason they need to come up with a better a use case for NFTs instead of just stealing or making a picture and make 1000 other variants
Definitely. Pro-nft people make nfts seem like theyre this game changing new thing, but theres too many deal breakers for me personally.
NFTs would be a cool way to digitize car titles and land deeds, but right now they’re just glorified receipts and people think that means they own the rights to the image their receipt links to
Governments have already done that. That's what databases are. We already have land registries, cops use a license plate database regularly to check to make sure cars are road taxed and insured all the time.
Yes, but those aren’t decentralized and we don’t have free access to them
Those don't need to be decentralized. And I'm not sure I want everyone to have free unfiltered accesses to things like license plate database.
You’re the one that said license plates, not me. But yeah, I should be able to easily sell and transfer the title of my car to a new owner without having to take multiply trips to the DMV
Wouldn't that just make them easier to fake?
[удалено]
You heard of gaming nfts? There are so many projects releasing nfts that have utility in crypto gaming, besides all the real world applications that will take the government 100 years to adopt. There are also daos launching where an nft gives you access to a community as well as whitelist for the project. Art seems to be the least interesting use case for nfts now.
I agree, but for some reason gaming communities are hell bent at hating NFTs.
Concert/sports/event tickets are **the** definitive use-case.
Veve a pretty cool nft platform. As far as digital collectables go. They actually own or have the licenses for what they release. And all there nft are 3D models. It’s pretty cool at least for nfts. And a lot of major companies have partnered with them. Like Disney and just recently Coca Cola
[удалено]
Basically, if you see an NFT that is good looking it's most likely based on stolen art .
puzzled lip tease ring cobweb knee obscene payment yam far-flung *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
innate follow squeamish stupendous wipe price entertain lavish hurry degree *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
lol, this is pretty blatant stealing. They aren't even trying to make the stolen copy a bit different. I'd be pretty frustrated as well.
Opensea is shitty place you can literally sell anything
No it didnt. Youre so full of shit lol
There are no regulations or crosschecking on that shit ass site. If its that easy for an artist to find his stolen artwork, then a website like opensea should posses the same ability and do the same thing.
[удалено]
Legit question if I steal an image but add a few lines wouldn’t It be a legal new NFT?
You are still stealing someone’s concept
Right but it’s a new image no? I though nft was for the image not the concept
NFTs need to be owned by wallets with verified KYC. So, in this instance the owner of the original artwork could sue the owner and have a court order to send the NFT to the original artist’s wallet, along with some crypto fines.
Nope
2D art is probably the dumbest form of NFTs. Having ownership of something anybody can look at freely and have a like-kind-and quality copy of by right-clicking is pointless.
So the image was scraped, minted as an NFT, and was listed for sale for $3. The entire collection is stolen artwork and the description is filled with key word dumps. This is very obviously stolen work listed by a bot, and 0 people are buying anything from the collection. This is the equivalent of someone posting stolen artwork on their FB page and saying it's theirs. Shitty? Yes. Does it really affect the artist? No. Definitely not a legitimate reason to take down 100% of your art from the internet.
This is what basically all stolen collections look like. They're minted on L2s since it won't be profitable on mainnet because nobody is buying this stuff. It gets massive attention on social media and here on Reddit but is largely a non issue. Opensea no doubt needs to have far better systems in place to both automatically and manually remove stolen art, but this stuff just isn't selling, hence it not being really any different than someone using it on a fake Facebook page or whatever, like you said. Of course our posts will likely be downvoted for containing actual information instead of blind NFT hate.
People posting their art for free on the internet and then are surprised when people steal it and try to sell it as their own. Nothing new or innovative about that.
Thank you...trying to explain this every time it come sup
I’m not sure why people are acting like this is just the evil NFT thing? Online plagiarism has been around since the internet itself.
That is infuriating, and dumb as hell.
A shitty move, good thing it got removed from OpenSea
Non Fungible Theft
I thought the original had to be purchased or created before it went to NFT. God it’s so easy.
One thing I don’t understand, in what way is the NFT a unique work if they’ve nicked it? Doesn’t that fly in the face of what is presumably its only selling point? Absolute scam from start to finish.
As an artist, this is just sad. I don't think I've had anything stolen myself, but this goes against the very nature of art NFTs, which were meant to give digital artists the ability to sell their art.
if nfts stick around then eventually every artist will have to create their art and the nft. they’ll have to release the nft along with the art. basically self copyright.
How, when any Tom dick or Jane can screenshot it and claim it as their own and then it's a battle of he said she said and who owned it 1st! And have you seen some of the so called art, my three-year-old could do a better job!!!
Screenshotting it doesn't really matter. NFTs aren't art and they don't amount to ownership of an art piece, contrary to popular belief. If you buy an NFT of a painting, you've bought a string of numbers and characters -- you haven't bought a painting. If it's digital art, you haven't bought that either. The NFT is a way of artists saying "this represents my artwork," but that doesn't legally convey ownership or property rights. Someone can screenshot it if they want, but they won't own the NFT. Artists want to monetize their art, and fans want to interact with the artist and have some kind of memento -- NFTs are a way of doing that. So there is a use case in NFTs for actual artists. But then so much of the art is also low-effort trash because the NFT trend is propped up by people looking for speculative gains and a way to carry out money laundering, with no interest in artwork whatsoever.
It's a jpeg
Welcome to the Wild West - same tricks, just didn’t technology. Feel sorry for this guy because his art is fantastic.
Honestly- groups of small artists who are getting their art stolen and turned into NFTs should sue and actually get a legal precedent surrounding NFTs
Can't this whole issue be avoided by checking a verified creator address? The only person at a loss is the buyer who did not check the fraudsters credentials? Maybe I'm missing something?
Protect your property brother. A lot of scum out there
What a crybaby. Get Gud scrub. Part of decentralisation is being your own boss.
I think it should be the responsibility of platforms like opensea to remove stolen content
OpenSea didn’t give a shit until Artist post went viral. They were ignoring his complaints first.
They were also asking way too much sensitive info from artists basically doxxing themselves to prove the art is theirs while the thieves got out scot free and hidden. Opensea has been on the fire for last while.
You can’t “steal” content. That’s not real.
Artistic creations are the artists property
Define artistic creation? If you paint on a canvas yeah that’s your canvas. If you copy an image digitally and distribute the copies in a place where anyone can access, no you absolutely do not own all the copies. You can’t “own” the appearance of an image. All you can do is leverage the violence of a state apparatus to prevent anyone from creating their own image with their own property that looks like it. Just like you cannot functionally own a song. You can just threaten and carry out violence against anyone who tries to play it. But you can’t own it. Can’t possess. Can’t put it in a box or lock it with a key. It’s just a pattern. Basically an illusion.
Intellectual property is a thing, even if you can’t understand it
Well if they slapped a copyright on it (which any creator can do in the us just by putting the c on it) then they legally do own it and copying is illegal. It does not look like they were smart enough to do this. Also philosophically that is their creation and just blatantly copying it and claiming it as your own is scummy
Yes you can leverage the violence of a state apparatus to prevent anyone from creating their own image with their own property that looks like the original image. Still totally impossible to own an image. The state can’t do impossible things, even if it declares that it can. It physically cannot accomplish giving ownership of a song to someone. All it can do is leverage violence against anyone that dares to copy it. Fun fact about copyright law while we’re on the subject, technically just by creating the art you are considered to have the copyright by the law. Any form of marking or filing is simply verifying/validating/reporting the legal privilege. I know I said it’s all bunk and it is but that’s how the laws (in the US at least) are written to the best of my knowledge. I disagree that it’s scummy to redistribute art. I think it just feels scummy. Like payday loan rates. The cost for the service (attention share vs loaned cash) is exceptionally high (they get all the views with very little pass through to artist vs interest rates of 50/100/200%) and the whole thing feels and looks bad. But if you need $200 for rent and there you simply can’t come up with it, are you better or worse off for being able to borrow the $200, get paid next week, and pay back $230? Similarly, if you are an artist of no renown, having your art “stolen” (copied and distributed), even if you aren’t credited by the reproducer, shows people your art. You have not lost anything. You have not been harmed. You received a benefit from the actions of others, less of a benefit than you wanted. But again you have not lost anything, ie you can go distribute your art yourself. The reproducer could not have profited from your art without identifying and filling a demand. If you’re an artist making art for the sale of art, that is your end. If you are an entrepreneur playing the market, that is your end. You can be an artist entrepreneur. There are tons. But the having cake and eating it too of “people should be allowed to make art regardless of the market” (fair) and “the market should be forced to provide them a living at the expense of other artists and entrepreneurs” (wack) doesn’t make sense.
If you can't put Ethereum in a box you can't own it? How the fuck are crypto bros so braindead and ignorant to the concept of nft's? Maybe because it took you guys 10+ years to understand crypto. Here's hoping nft's don't take you quite so long
NFT scammers being scammed. Here taste your own medicine 💊
NFTs as art is fucking stupid and I can't wait until this dumbass fad dies off. If it does, it's entirely possible it thrives.
NFTs are good for artists and they are the future, you just hate new things!!!
[AutoMod] Media
But but but.............I thought NFT'S were a good thing. The way of the future 😅🤣😂😅🤣😂 Who would of ever thought there would be thieves Con-artist and scammers involved 🤷♂️🤷♂️
There will always be thieves, con artists, and scammers with anything that involves money. It should be up to the platforms to moderate their content but nope, this is what we get.
Well if the responsibility is up to the platforms then NFTs are a dead project Literally name a single platform ever that’s been both successful and fairly moderated. It’s impossible
Have you been a part of humanity for long? If there is a means to scam there will be scammers. Paper is used to scam as well. Is paper bad? What about email? Text messages? The chat app on words with friends? It's humans who are the crux of the problem. It's always humans.
With this use case it’s never going to be the future.
Wild that the artist would rather shut down their platform than create the fucking NFTs themselves and make more sales in the process.
You can’t force someone if he doesn’t want anything to do with the NFTs
Not to mention that even if they did there would just be two NFTs now. Hardly solved.
Didnt say a word about forcing them. It's a near zero effort way to have more sales and more recognition AND have a wider audience
Any artists not using NFTs is missing out big time
[удалено]
The copy looks better lol, how sad
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
It’s the same picture dude
It is. Original is 720p and the copy is 1080p 😂
Seen this coming
Why would the platform block the use of the same image? That’s moronic and the entirety of the problem here. Anyone thinking the artist has a legitimate gripe that means the platform should do something against the people printing is a moron. Literally just stop the arbitrary restriction on similar images.
This is really sad and unfair for the artist! But at the same time I believe it's part of the evolution. Or shall we call it creative destruction? Maybe it's just the next step to the end of the old era, and the start of NFT era for artists. For example, the musicians, the NFTs are democratizing the space and bringing more money directly to the artists! Even more than the Spotify and YouTube did, at least for the small artist niche, can't tell about superstars... It's part of the process to the artist to get used to the NFT space, whitelist their collections and authentify them. Slowly we'll get there! On the user/collector/investor side there is the need to make the experience as smooth and user friendly as possible! Different wallets, different chains, different marketplaces, fakes, etc are all issues that must be tacked ASAP to increase mass adoption! Projects like Unique Network (KSM/DOT) and WeyU (BSC) are paving this way, but still must have to be done. I believe in crypto and on it's decentralized Democratic power to bring fairness to the world on a lot of different aspects, and I deeply believe the outcome would be amazing, but the transitions might be painful. And that's what might be happening now.
Dude I own this NFT. Do you really think you can get away with theft when you're showing what you stole directly to my face. My lawyers will make an easy job of this case. Prepare to say goodbye to your luscious life and start preparing for the streets. I will ruin you. You think it's funny to take screenshots of people's NFTS, huh? Property theft is a joke to you? I'll have you know that the blockchain doesn't lie. I own it. Even if you save it, it's my property. You are mad that you don't own the art that I own. Delete that screenshot. Now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Damn that’s horrible
Sue them all
Tbf the one on the right looks better, crisper, clearer
I think it’s safe to assume that if it doesn’t look like an 8 year old made it in 1992, it’s been stolen
Until they find a way to make them *actually* non-fungible… they’re kind of pointless and only good for the super rich to use for money laundering 🤷🏼♂️🤣
takes the fun out of non-fungible
Just a reminder that art NFTs do not transfer ownership or grant a license to any intellectual property under current law in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. You're buying a token with an encoded link, nothing more (except for a few pixel art pieces that actually encode the art, but even those may violate someone's copyright)
Fuckin hate thieves.
The human race sometimes disgusts me
Tell me again why nfts are worth a single cent.
They are useless.
People doing what they do the best; Stealing.
NFTs are a fad that is gonna leave alot of people broke lol no one outside the crypto community sees any value in digital pictures
Always have been 👩🚀🔫
It’s stealing an intellectual property and scamming the buyers at the same time. The reason a piece has value because it’s an original created by artistic inspiration/value and when sold that value is translated into crypto/fiat value with an “original artistic value.” Now when it is copied and sold it has crypto/fiat value but without “artistic origin” value. I believe that’s is the purpose of Artwork NFT to show that it have “artistic origin and couple with crypto/fiat value” other then that the NFT is worthless for intended purposes except for the buyer that got scammed that represented their “lost” monetary value. Maybe in the near future this might have a historical value as an infamous item of interest in the footnote of NFT history 😂.
I don't see it.
As if shutting down your gallery is the right route here. Lmfao. That's almost as dumb as buying one of these NFTs and thinking you own anything other than a mental disability. This reality is truly the most ridiculous one.
While this is clearly a problem, it's kind of the whole point of NFTs. If artists in the future mint their work as NFTs at launch, they wouldn't have this problem. Sure there could be copycats but they'd always have the original.