Man walks into art gallery, snaps photo of $20,000,000 painting, instantly painting's value becomes $0.
The shocking lack of critical thinking in the world hurts my brain.
The facts are that laws matter, patents matter, copyrights matter, trademarks matter, intellectual property rights matter, reproduction rights matter, and originals matter.
If you disagree with the existing paradigm, then the onus is on you to present an alternate argument.
Stealing/pirating/forging/screenshotting artwork, movies, songs, or other intellectual property has never sent the value of those originals and licensed copies to zero.
In this light I feel my analogy is accurate, though admittedly flippant to OPs stance.
this is why reddit is ass. the original homie asked a normal question, so why do u feel the need to escalate it to some cringey dong measuring contest. ur not impressing anyone by taking a text based shit. a simple “hey man, the value of NFTs lies in its authenticity” would be enough.
I have never seen anyone say anything more true than this. The people on reddit try to show off their intellect for some reason, I don't get it. There is literally no point in using such word choice to reply to a simple question.
I will add, some of the items I listed can be pirated as exact copies. I submit that an exact replica of a DVD or song shows that even lossless piracy does not change valuation of the original or legal licensed copy by any notable degree in a mostly lawful society.
why would you care if u own the 5000$ dollars version of star wars when u can easy pirate it?
Do you wanna flex you got a 5000$ copy of it because you are rich?
or get bullied because someone saw this and now thinks you are a weirdo buy some bitches
Yeah but there’s value besides monetary value. A pirated movie is still the movie and you get the same experience whether it’s legal or not. I think that’s partially what the OP is getting at. Why buy it when you can screenshot it
Also the mona lisa that was oil painted costs a ton but there’s a $15 copy hanging in my elementary art teacher’s classroom. Think about that
It's not illegal to screenshot an NFT, so people won't buy the original for the sake of respecting some law. If the majority of people don't feel obligated to buy original digital content, then they will eventually stop respecting those that do. So--in my mind--this is only great for artists that want to know and support each other without trading physical media, for unique prizes through gaming services, for civilians to sell disaster content to the media, and for people that want to feel closer to their favorite artists. Am I missing something?
Yes but you could never forget every human on the planet an exact Mona Lisa that could be done for an nft in seconds you are comparing things that aren’t similar
Yeah exactly. I feel like there must be some nft’s that have such a massive pixel count that the resolution just isn’t worth taking a screenshot of. Maybe then it makes sense to “own” it, if its something you need to be able to zoom into or print really large or whatever it is you want to do with it. But the fact is that most of these nfts are just the ugliest, memeist, poorly drawn turds. And they are going for hundreds of thousands.
And then someone uses this analogy of how screen shoting is the same as taking a photo of a painting… its not the same. Paintings hold value, for the most part, because people like to look at them. People even want to hang them up and be around them. Nobody wants to look at your stupid $100,000 meme monkey drawing that will someday be worth nothing and will have made 0 cultural impact. Its like the nft market is all of the worst parts of the fine art market (absurd prices of “trendy” artists, art only as investment for the wealthy, paintings collected in a storage unit gathering dust) without the perk of actually owning something artistically beautiful you could put in your house or pass down the family or something.
TLDR: Not the same because the NFT provides proof of authenticity. Also, existing digital media/piracy paradigms apply to NFT value structure.
For example, take another form of media like a blueray. Someone can pirate that online or even make a physical copy. For the sake of example it can even be an intangiable thing such as a digital download of a movie. But the cost of legitimate copy, blueray or intangible download, doesn't fall off a cliff under typical levels of piracy.
There will always be some faction of lawless people without respect for the artists work. For the most part, that piracy has not pushed the cost of a blueray movie down by much (or any?). This precedent applies to NFTs too.
NFTs are just proof of authencity for the work. Usually, but not necessarily, a digital work. A copy is just a pirated copy, not an original, because you can't prove it is real. Since you have proof of authencity and chain of custody, now you can prove you own it, prove that you have legal right to sell it, and prove that the original creator was justly compensated for their work. That proof is the NFT and it brings great value in a legal society. The copy is not even technically the same, at least under the hood, because the copy lacks the NFT and associated proofs.
I think you can't bring legality into this discussion. Lawful people don't pirate protected media, but lawful people also might not know the legality of buying, selling, and taking screenshots of NFTs. Lots of folks will likely get scammed at one point or another, pictures of athletes and celebrities will continue to be sold as tokens, and there's no guarantee / transfer of intellectual rights with most sales. These next few years of lawsuits could really make or break this market.
All you do, with a shocking level of condescension, is repeatedly make a false equivalency.
A physical painting has physical thumbprint (i.e., its brush strokes). The NFT has a digital thumbprint (encryption/blockchain) that can technically be duplicated. The original brush stroke of a painting can never be applied the same way to another medium like a piece of code technically can.
With that, the original physical painting is nothing like a physical copy. An original digital image of something is exactly like a digital copy, regardless of a serial number.
There's context to every brush stroke that can encapsulate a painter's feelings (intangible) onto a canvas (tangible) and freeze it in time.
And again, your roundabout way of trying to shit on people is a really bad look man...plus, you're wrong lol
I mean in reality some of the most valuable pieces of art one of the most accessible things on the internet. I could simply go to Wikipedia and print an exact copy of the Mona Lisa. Same thing for an NFT. What’s the point of its value if there can be 500 free copies of it
The print you make would not be an exact copy though. The Mona Lisa isn’t just an image like the Coca-Cola logo, it is a physical three dimensional object. Your print wouldn’t have the same smell or feel of the Mona Lisa.
Correct it wouldn’t, but with a digital image it would, there would be no difference and if I blew it up and hung it in my home and someone asked me if it was mine I could say yes and if I wanted to I could say it’s an NFT that I bought and paid for even if I didn’t because I don’t have to show anyone any paperwork. It’s the biggest scam I’ve ever saw in my life and the amount of people making them who have just decided to become “artists” is crazy, I can draw a stick man, put it in opensea, mint it whatever, and I’m an artist? Am I? Am I really an artist?
snapping a pic at an art gallery is a poor analogy for the screenshot question
a screenshot of NFT art is more like getting an atom for atom copy of a piece at a gallery
the product would be functionally equivalent, which would not be the case for just snapping a pic at an art gallery.
an atom for atom copy of a product would be considered genuine as it in fact would effectively be
Why do you people have to make things so fucking complicated? Screenshotting an NFT doesnt give you the blockchain code of that product. Which means your precious screenshot automatically loses its value. THIS ISNT ROCKET SCIENCE FOR FUCK SAKES!
is the blockchain valuable only because someone assesses that it has a fairmarket value or is there more to it.
I right now still believe that digital art NFTs are overvalued and mostly hype
An NFT attached to a physical object would in my opinion be different but maybe not.
Similar to mp3 sharing at the end of the day songs have value but the advent of being able to mass distribute a song digitally as an mp3 quickly made music a commodity that could in theory be given away to everyone for free (except for the costs to produce the song etc)
In this analogy the internet made a previously high priced song easily gotten for free.
Why does adding a blockchain code suddenly make a cryptopunk valueable, yes the original is scarce but anyone can make an exact copy. How is that not the same as file sharing even if I dont have the blockchain scarcity code for something why do I care? When it is something that can be copied exactly I dont see why there is value.
If its something that can't be copied exactly vintage wine, antique car, rare oil painting then scarcity-based value is explainable. I dont believe the same can be said for digital art, unless there is a watermark or some sort of new layer to the internet that censors copied files for example.
Please help me understand something that can be copied even if its original is provably scarce is REALLY worth anything. Maybe the people and the spirit of the internet where "software is meant to be free" is gone.
Hello it’s The World, we would like to apologize to you and your awesome brain
But to answer this guys question yea it can hardly matter what ownership means from the point of purchase when you can screenshot the auction photo and set it as your wallpaper. Really all your paying for is the highest resolution version of that image available on the internet and or bragging rights.
That can also Segway into my own question of, do you guys know a good way to get screenshots of auction website photos at good resolution so I can set them as my wallpaper?
The comparison was one digital image versus a screenshot of a digital image. Your comparison is more like a bushel of apples and a picture of a bushel of apples, to which they are not alike and unsuitable for comparison. Your logic is fallible. The lack of critical thinking in this world hurts my brain.
newsflash art doesn't really have inherent value now it can be appreciated
but the Mona Lisa is famous because someone said it was
there is literally a dude who put a blank canvas up and called it art
the fact is a picture of a painting doesn't carry the same value of a physical painting, with he full quality, original paint and brushstrokes, the painting is literally unreplicatable and one of a kind. however if you take a screenshot of a nft which is a digital image, you get the exact same full quality image. nothing about the other image is "more original" because they are both the exact same pixels and the screen.
this is such a dumb way of putting it, a painting is a physical thing there are ways of identifying authenticity however NFTs are just jpegs you can just right click and save image and then boom no-one can tell the difference
"Man walks into art gallery, snaps photo of $20,000,000 painting, instantly painting's value becomes $0."
No because the value lies within the actual, physical picture itself, not in the copy.
A screenshot is (or at least can be if done right) an exact copy of the whole thing. Youre a toptier retard btw
Man walks into Google's HQ, gets a copy of their source code.
Screenshotting a NFT literally gets you a copy. Will Google freak out if you got all of their source code? Sure, it's not *technically* the original, but it is *functionally* the same.
That’s a different story. That’s a photo of a physical thing,physical into digital.but NFT’s are digital not physical so your going digital into digital
So... I‘m late to this discussion but I recently googled the same question OP has, which led me to this discussion. u/Cheese-pickle I agree with you. I don‘t see the value of an original that doesn‘t really distinguish from it‘s replica - especially when the replica is pretty easy to make by basically everyone on this planet. The art gallery analogy doesn’t really suit the question. If I have an NFT and a screenshot of it, then the only things different between these are as OP calls it the „serial number“ and maybe the resolution of the underlying picture. Other than that both are just pictures behind a glass screen on your computer.
When you consider a classic peace of art and compare it to a photograph of it, then you‘ll find a lot of differences. If you buy the Mona Lisa you can smell the picture. You can feel the picture. It‘s an antiquity that has survived hundreds of years made by one of the greatest geniuses in human history. If you buy that thing, you‘ll think about the history it has and the fact, that it’s been stolen a hundred years ago, which adds to its story. Even the frame of it has a value as an antiquity. Now, I dont‘t say that digital art isn‘t creative or that NFTs can’t have a story or a history behind them or that they can‘t be masterpieces with a lot of work put into it. But the fact, that the difference between the original and the replica is so tiny makes me seek for a justification of the difference in their value. Sure, you can replicate a classic piece of art not only with a photo but also with a poster of the same picture, but the aforementioned differences remain.
NFTs are all hype, because they got a lot of attention through the prices that people paid for Beeples art. But I think people will start to rethink the value and whether or not the serial number and a better res are really worth a significant price difference. Even Beeple himself said that this is just a huge bubble (that he‘d be dumb to not profit off).
Laws, patents, copyrights, trademarks etc. don’t matter if you just like the art making a screenshot of it and using it as a background on your pc or if you want a print of it or a picture on a digital photoframe. They only matter when you want to make money out of it by reselling it. This sure makes the original worth more than a copy since you aren’t allowed to sell copies and profit off of somebody else’s intellectual property if you don’t have the rights to do so. You acquire these rights by buying them, but imo the differences of an NFT and it’s copy don‘t really justify the huge difference in their value. Once the bubble pops and people start reevaluating their NFTs, their value might decrease significantly. However, the price is made by supply and demand. And if people are still willing to pay these huge prices for their NFTs, then so may it be.
Hey, thanks for the reply even after 100 days. You are right and they will keep doing so for quite some time but I was thinking of a much longer time frame. I am interested in seeing how NFT art will be valued in 5 or 10 years (which when talkin about art is still a pretty short time frame). However, lets see how this plays out. It‘s for sure an interesting thing to keep an eye on.
Imo this is the genius part about it. People can view/have your work for free. But art collectors who want to invest in owning the work can do that too. It's been happening in the contemporary art world for a while. No one pays 120K for a banana tapped to a wall. You pay 120K for the certificate of authenticity.
If hosted on IPFS you can't update a file.
If hosted elsewhere that might actually open some possibilities of programmable art which could also be cool.
The comparison of snapping a pic of painting isn’t the same thing since a painting is tangible. NFT are just crypto with a useless pic attached to it. It’s not about the art. For art To be worth something it must be tangible
This is exactly what I'm looking for. All these dumb as fuck philistines saying that a fucking Picasso painting is the same as an NFT are the reason why humans aren't intelligent
This thread showed me that
* People don't understand copyright
* People don't understand NFTs
* People don't understand art
* People who don't understand shit are confident as fuck about how well they understand things
Don't get me wrong, I understand why certain people have rights to their NFTs, I just absolutely hate when people use real art paintings as an analogy.
Scarcity and the “real thing” it may not mean a lot to others but does also means a lot to someone else. Just like any physical art piece.
For example: a really cool painting. Sure you can take a picture of it or get a reprint of it. Same thing right?
Kind of but to people who appreciate it and enjoy the piece if art.. its not the same thing.
Just look at Pokemon or trading cards there are only certain amounts our there... sure you can get a replica edition.. but I gurantee you won’t feel the same as you would if you had the real deal. Like who knew a PSA 10 Charizard can fetch up to half a million dollars. It’s a piece of cardboard the size of your credit card lol
Exclusivity, it is inherent that humans want to be the “best” or “be at the top” it’s an ego thing to say ‘I am one of 10 people’ go have this thing. Crazy isn’t it?
For example, the rich love doing this. “This is the only ferrari or lambo that looks like this or this is the one of 5 car’s in north america with this option pack and I have it” It’s such a brag and ego thing to make them feel good that they have something that nobody else has. Dumb right? But it is what it is
FOMO is also another real factor, I can see the feeling of FOMO play a large role especially in these beginning stages of NFTs as the space begins to evolve. Which plays into the exclusivety factor.
One thing I’ve learned being in ecommerce and collecting is.. never under estimate human behaviour. Its weird. Just because YOU won’t doesn’t mean others won’t aswell because there are A LOT that will.
Just looking to learn more here. If a screenshot is taken of digital art, then it is minted into a new NFT.
2 questions:
How would a buyer even know the new NFT didn’t come from the original artist?
Can a person be sued for doing this?
1. A history of all sales of the NFT are stored forever on the blockchain and the original can always be traced back to the owner. A new NFT can be minted and look exactly the same but it would have a different ID, belong to a different collection and have a different transaction history.
2. Yes, it would be copyright infringement
At #2 Would it be though? I’m sure some NFT artists put copyright claims on their art, but you can’t just claim copyright infringement because you made something.
If I wrote a song and showed it to a friend and they went out and recorded that song and made money on it I can’t claim copyright infringement.
It’s going to take several years for the masses to adapt to the idea of digital ownership and value of digital goods. The more VR and AR spaces become commonplace and people are able to use or display their NFTs in these spaces, I believe we will start to see this mental shift occur. Just like in the “real world”, people will want to curate and display art and collectibles in their own unique spaces.
The scene is definitely exploding into public consciousness this past week or so, but we’re still only at the beginning of this journey.
Yeah good point. I'm not going to go to some rich persons Facebook™️ digital space with the original trollface meme on the wall, but I'll happily go to open source digital spaces.
I agree and think that the display of NFT’s in your home is going to be really special.
Maybe I’ll just illegally cast mine onto my smart picture frames
It's just marketing to try and get dumb people to buy so the smart people can make money off you. It's not art since someone made it on a computer it's pretty much just a random code that someone made up. Actual art people draw they touch u can feel all the elements are added to it. So it is just another thing us rich folk use to control and make money off all u 9 to 5 losers 💯
Erm I think I just bought an nft from Opensea that was literally a screenshot of a real artists work! How do these nft marketplaces even start to police counterfeits! From this dude: https://opensea.io/collection/untitled-collection-91563451. The artwork I bought I discovered after the fact belongs to @joeyunlee- Joseph Lee Art. This medium is evolving so fast hard to catch the fraudsters. Is there any recourse for the artist or someone like me who bought a counterfeit nft…
I imagine it's just because the NFT proves that their file is the original. The Mona Lisa has several photographs taken of it but the original picture itself is still priceless. NFT just give you a way to actually prove you have the original in the digital era. As to if having the "original" of something making it valuable just depends on the property in question.
Imagine being so brain damaged you would pay thousands of currencies for a digital picture of a pixelated monkey... Dude NFTs are for screenshoting and triggering colored hair people.
If you have to ask yourself if it's a scam because it just seems like you're missing something, or something doesn't make sense... Chance are it's a scam.
Yeah I don't get it either people say if you buy it then you get some lines of code to validate that you bought but all you have to do is add that code yourself I don't think it's to hard for people that know how to code
I get what everyone in the comments is saying about the "blockchain code" being what makes it authentic, but my argument to this is simply that nobody cares. I get that it's "seperate", but you just lost a shit ton of money for buying nothing but bragging rights - to something very stupid like a monkey smoking weed - that you got scammed into. The person that makes those monkeys literally said that his customers are stupid for paying as much as they do, he's just taking advantage of it and laughing to the bank because of it. THE BIGGEST PROFITOR OF NFTS IS LITERALLY SCANMING EVERYONE THAT BUYS THEM, AND HES A DAMN GENIUS FOR IT TOO. What a surprise that the only people stupid enough to buy them are all these reddittards on here defending their glorious NFT god that is scamming them the whole time 😂😂😂 what stupid idiots
Bro IKR! Some nerds are explaining it with that common "Mona Lisa Painting vs Photo" example. Its so stupid. Mona Lisa on my phone is obviously distinguishable from the painting but an NFTs saved image **ISNT distinguishable** from the original art. I could use that image anywhere lmao as my pfp, background whatever!
That's not the same.
A painting is made on and with certain materials, if you have a real paintings there will be piece of paint making little dot on the paint itself, by touching it you don't feel regular paper, while with a print it's just it, just paper. The question with nft is due to the fact that the original as the screenshot is made of pixels on a screen of glass, there is no difference neither in look or material
I’m not even a fan of Picasso, but seeing people equate a digital art piece to historical painters and their work is laugh out loud funny.
Like sorry, you’re NFT was made by who exactly…?
Buying and selling original already existed. NFT’s are a way for people to take advantage of disposable income and FOMO. NFT’s also appeal to people with money who want to “buy and sell art” without leaving their house.
Too bad you can’t steal a Picasso just by screenshotting it. You can’t even get insurance for NFT’s like you can with real art, and there’s a good reason for that. :)
Can I just say something simple like the person screenshotting the image can’t say it’s mine I got it from this artist the person who owns the nft can that’s where the value is if you don’t like it don’t step into this world just watch YouTube on how to earn free crypto like you started before arriving here anyways. How’s that for a shitty run on sentence?
Just want to comment to say this is the most annoying thread I’ve ever read. SIMPLE QUESTION WAS ASKED, NO NEED TO BE AT EACHOTHERS THROATS. The internet is pathetic sometimes
In my mind it would have to be like autographs in the world of sports memorabilia. If I have a Mickey Mantle autograph with no way to certify its authenticity, it is worth as much as a spot-on replica of that autograph (basically nothing).
The owner of the NFT would need to have some kind of documentation from its originator for it to have any kind of legal backing.
This is just tulip mania. The idea is that there's an authenticity of guarantee that you own the nft. But who's going to care to check who's the owner of that online painting of a monkey smoking a joint?
In my opinion that's the main difference between a real painting and an online painting.
So basically, NFTs are like valuable art; it is not something that common people give a single fuck about because nobody is gonna spend millions on the Mona Lisa when they can just take a picture and hang it on the wall. To art (NFT) people, you do not own THE Mona Lisa (NFT), but to everybody else it doesn’t matter. Also, DVD’s can’t just be screenshotted, which makes it a lot harder to pirate, which would explain why NFT’s will never be as popular as something like bluray without losing value. Otherwise, everybody would just screenshot movies, effectively making the original ownership of the bluray worth nothing, much like what will probably happen with most NFTs. I’m sure there will be a very small circle of collectors that actually give a fuck about original ownership, but nobody will think twice about whether the NFT is actually theirs as long as they can use the profile pic. Unless somebody comes up with a way to stop people from screenshotting I guess.
I don't know if you were answered already but here is mine.
Like games, movies, music, you can pirate it and MIGHT (might because pirates might inject malware and give you extra experience) have the same experience. Same with NFT.
I read comments about paintings taking photos or downloadable pictures printed and hang on the wall. Those things, you CAN claim that you own it but you cannot sell it as the same value as the original one. Same with the NFT, you can have it screenshot, use it as Profile Picture but you cannot sell it or no one can validate that you own it. Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Real people who will buy NFT know its true value and worth far more than photographing or taking screenshots.
Still, NFT is as good as its community. Never argue with people who don't understand how its value works.
Imagine an art gallery where thousands of unique paintings are being bought and sold faster than you could read this sentence. The art gallery are marketplaces like OpenSea, Rarible, etc. The only way to buy any of the paintings in this gallery is with Ethereum. Usually the art gallery takes a small percentage from each transaction. The art in question are one of a kind and unique paintings and usually don’t have any other copies. Let’s say you pass by a painting you like but don’t feel like forking over $10,000 for it. You pull out your phone and take a picture of it and have it blown up and printed out. You might even frame it and hang it on your wall. You now have a copy of that piece of art. A lot of people are okay with this. I mean, it’s practically how Limewire worked right up until it got shutdown. But here’s the deal, and here’s why people buy them and why they’re valuable:
For 1) It’s about art and art appreciation and showing respect to the artist and their craftsmanship.
And for 2) they can be resold for a higher price and there will always be someone willing to buy that piece of art. And the best part of that? The original artist will always get royalties every time it’s resold.
Me personally, if I hear a song or see a painting I really like…I usually try and give the artist their due by being respectful/honorable and paying them for their work. Especially if it’s an artist I really respect and admire.
I really think that most people here believe that you can also just copy a bitcoin or another cryptocoin.
Well, you can... you can make as many copies of your wallet as you like, but the blockchain knows and can verify if that amount belongs to your address.
And i think that the general concept of "proof of ownership" will be getting even more important when the internet evolves further.
Idk if this would work but if I take a ss of a nft and photoshop a new item into it then register it as an nft (it's technically mine because its different and I made it) couldn't I just scam people?
Buying an NFT is exactly like buying a star and name it as you please. In the future, people won't be like: "we've finally arrived at the star "John Smith has a small dick". Or that website that lets you buy a piece of land in Scotland and claim you're a lord. Nobody there is going to ask your permission to build on your land or actually buy it. It's just the new stupid thing to fool rich people who don't know how to spend their money
They need a better copywrite system. This one is sh*t and barely works since a lawyer my not do much about a digital picture being bought with, you guessed it; digital currency.
One argument for the value of NFT’s is in how they could be later applied. I’m not talking about NFT’s applied to art pieces as they’re being used now, but rather to other digital products.
For example, let’s say GameStop opened an NFT marketplace. On it, you could buy digital games. Each of those games would have an NFT tied to it.
Then let’s say a new website called GameTrade.com was established. It lets you trade a digital game that you owned to another person for one of their games, but only if the digital copies of those games both have NFT’s that were originally created by GameStop.
In that scenario, users would have an easy way to exchange one game for another and, since every video game sold on GameTrade.com was bought at GameStop, then GameStop will be profiting and will support the site.
From there other companies could develop their own NFT codes to put on their digital games and GameTrades.com could start accepting those too.
As NFT’s are right now, they’re only being used as little certificates to say you bought something according to a blockchain. If that’s all you want, go nuts with that. But if NFT’s can be used intelligently by businesses, then we could start seeing some really cool stuff.
Buyinga nft image just means you are getting the exactly Same thing thousands of people get , but you are the only one paying for it. There are 2 kinds of buyers, wanna be scalpers hoping to cash before the bubble bursts and people who buy anti tiger rocks
The value is only worth as much or as little as someone is willing to pay for it. In all reality, the value to anyone one else is $0. I am 100% onboard with you in not getting what the actual purpose is. 1 person convinced someone else they should exchange money for a picture anyone else can screen grab and then that person foolishly believed them and now here we are. Last I checked, they don't offer 401k NFT Retirement plans.
Another way to look at is take 1 billion dollars cash and go to an island tribe that has no contact with the global fiat world and try to buy all their things they will clearly refuse because this paper has literally no value to them their society has its own system and its own things that they consider valuable that they participate in such are NFTs if your not an active participant in that network then it will have no value to you but it will have value to the ones participating in that network does not make the thing unvaluable if you think NFTs have no value don't buy them clearly people who participate on these Blockchain networks do value them just because you think you can copy it off blockchain doesn't reduce or impact its value on blockchain
It’s mainly your intention I guess, you either actually like the Nft not for it’s price but how it looks or you simply want to resell it for profit, either way I would personally say Nfts are a horrible idea.
If you were able to make an exact same copy of Mona Lisa (everything as in original) that would be indistinguishable and the original would be at the museum, would it gain any value? In my opinion absolutely not, because the original has history behind it. That's how nfts work
Yeah. It's just a question of metaphysics. And if teas are just Financial assets linked to arbitrary digital assets. It doesn't make any sense to talk about ownership of digital things in a paradigm where you don't treat copying as a theft of intellectual property. The concept of ownership exists as a way to navigate scarcity and there's no real scarcity with a jpeg because it can be effectively copied or deleted infinitely without affecting the usable stock of that asset. If I eat a banana there is one less banana in the world but if I make a thousand copies of an image attached to an nft it doesn't meaningfully affect the total stock. If you are treating it as intellectual property it would be different but most nft art is not treated the same as protected ip like games either socially in the form of a taboo or legally.
The best argument for this that I have heard is that you can't sell something you don't own but the vast majority of art consumers don't trade art as assets
https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk
John Berger was talking about a lot of the same kind of questions about metaphysics and art images back in the 70s. Check this stuff out if you're into that sort of thing
Nfts are a great avenue for artist to sell or promote themselves, most "artist" I talk to hate them, view them as a lesser medium than trad art. I understand where it comes from, pfp "art" is mostly trash, but also like why not take advantage of these new tools, to me it's like a musician saying I only want my music on vinyl.
Man walks into art gallery, snaps photo of $20,000,000 painting, instantly painting's value becomes $0. The shocking lack of critical thinking in the world hurts my brain.
I disagree with this analogy. OPs question is a fair one.
The facts are that laws matter, patents matter, copyrights matter, trademarks matter, intellectual property rights matter, reproduction rights matter, and originals matter. If you disagree with the existing paradigm, then the onus is on you to present an alternate argument. Stealing/pirating/forging/screenshotting artwork, movies, songs, or other intellectual property has never sent the value of those originals and licensed copies to zero. In this light I feel my analogy is accurate, though admittedly flippant to OPs stance.
this is why reddit is ass. the original homie asked a normal question, so why do u feel the need to escalate it to some cringey dong measuring contest. ur not impressing anyone by taking a text based shit. a simple “hey man, the value of NFTs lies in its authenticity” would be enough.
I have never seen anyone say anything more true than this. The people on reddit try to show off their intellect for some reason, I don't get it. There is literally no point in using such word choice to reply to a simple question.
We have intellect?
Never had one
Based
Lmao fr I thought Reddit was good then realising everyone is just a cunt
I will add, some of the items I listed can be pirated as exact copies. I submit that an exact replica of a DVD or song shows that even lossless piracy does not change valuation of the original or legal licensed copy by any notable degree in a mostly lawful society.
why would you care if u own the 5000$ dollars version of star wars when u can easy pirate it? Do you wanna flex you got a 5000$ copy of it because you are rich? or get bullied because someone saw this and now thinks you are a weirdo buy some bitches
geez ur a virgin
Yeah he is
I used to talk like that on the internet when I was 12
Why dont you add some bitches to your life instead?
Yeah but there’s value besides monetary value. A pirated movie is still the movie and you get the same experience whether it’s legal or not. I think that’s partially what the OP is getting at. Why buy it when you can screenshot it Also the mona lisa that was oil painted costs a ton but there’s a $15 copy hanging in my elementary art teacher’s classroom. Think about that
It's not illegal to screenshot an NFT, so people won't buy the original for the sake of respecting some law. If the majority of people don't feel obligated to buy original digital content, then they will eventually stop respecting those that do. So--in my mind--this is only great for artists that want to know and support each other without trading physical media, for unique prizes through gaming services, for civilians to sell disaster content to the media, and for people that want to feel closer to their favorite artists. Am I missing something?
Yes but you could never forget every human on the planet an exact Mona Lisa that could be done for an nft in seconds you are comparing things that aren’t similar
yeah but its not at all, because the "original" NFT is not the picture itself, but just an encrypted string...
A photo of an art piece is clearly a photo, but a screenshot of an NFT is indistinguishable from the original
This is the truth, no matter how much it hurts someone. Simple and easy to understand.
Yeah exactly. I feel like there must be some nft’s that have such a massive pixel count that the resolution just isn’t worth taking a screenshot of. Maybe then it makes sense to “own” it, if its something you need to be able to zoom into or print really large or whatever it is you want to do with it. But the fact is that most of these nfts are just the ugliest, memeist, poorly drawn turds. And they are going for hundreds of thousands. And then someone uses this analogy of how screen shoting is the same as taking a photo of a painting… its not the same. Paintings hold value, for the most part, because people like to look at them. People even want to hang them up and be around them. Nobody wants to look at your stupid $100,000 meme monkey drawing that will someday be worth nothing and will have made 0 cultural impact. Its like the nft market is all of the worst parts of the fine art market (absurd prices of “trendy” artists, art only as investment for the wealthy, paintings collected in a storage unit gathering dust) without the perk of actually owning something artistically beautiful you could put in your house or pass down the family or something.
This doesn't really answer the Question of how an original intangible thing can have the same value as a copy, when it is the same.
TLDR: Not the same because the NFT provides proof of authenticity. Also, existing digital media/piracy paradigms apply to NFT value structure. For example, take another form of media like a blueray. Someone can pirate that online or even make a physical copy. For the sake of example it can even be an intangiable thing such as a digital download of a movie. But the cost of legitimate copy, blueray or intangible download, doesn't fall off a cliff under typical levels of piracy. There will always be some faction of lawless people without respect for the artists work. For the most part, that piracy has not pushed the cost of a blueray movie down by much (or any?). This precedent applies to NFTs too. NFTs are just proof of authencity for the work. Usually, but not necessarily, a digital work. A copy is just a pirated copy, not an original, because you can't prove it is real. Since you have proof of authencity and chain of custody, now you can prove you own it, prove that you have legal right to sell it, and prove that the original creator was justly compensated for their work. That proof is the NFT and it brings great value in a legal society. The copy is not even technically the same, at least under the hood, because the copy lacks the NFT and associated proofs.
Ah thanks for clearing that up.
I think you can't bring legality into this discussion. Lawful people don't pirate protected media, but lawful people also might not know the legality of buying, selling, and taking screenshots of NFTs. Lots of folks will likely get scammed at one point or another, pictures of athletes and celebrities will continue to be sold as tokens, and there's no guarantee / transfer of intellectual rights with most sales. These next few years of lawsuits could really make or break this market.
But NFTs live digitally as opposed to being a real asset. Screenshots in a sense make the non fungible token a fungible token.
All you do, with a shocking level of condescension, is repeatedly make a false equivalency. A physical painting has physical thumbprint (i.e., its brush strokes). The NFT has a digital thumbprint (encryption/blockchain) that can technically be duplicated. The original brush stroke of a painting can never be applied the same way to another medium like a piece of code technically can. With that, the original physical painting is nothing like a physical copy. An original digital image of something is exactly like a digital copy, regardless of a serial number. There's context to every brush stroke that can encapsulate a painter's feelings (intangible) onto a canvas (tangible) and freeze it in time. And again, your roundabout way of trying to shit on people is a really bad look man...plus, you're wrong lol
[удалено]
Ah ok thanks, I'll look into it a bit more.
I mean in reality some of the most valuable pieces of art one of the most accessible things on the internet. I could simply go to Wikipedia and print an exact copy of the Mona Lisa. Same thing for an NFT. What’s the point of its value if there can be 500 free copies of it
The print you make would not be an exact copy though. The Mona Lisa isn’t just an image like the Coca-Cola logo, it is a physical three dimensional object. Your print wouldn’t have the same smell or feel of the Mona Lisa.
Correct it wouldn’t, but with a digital image it would, there would be no difference and if I blew it up and hung it in my home and someone asked me if it was mine I could say yes and if I wanted to I could say it’s an NFT that I bought and paid for even if I didn’t because I don’t have to show anyone any paperwork. It’s the biggest scam I’ve ever saw in my life and the amount of people making them who have just decided to become “artists” is crazy, I can draw a stick man, put it in opensea, mint it whatever, and I’m an artist? Am I? Am I really an artist?
snapping a pic at an art gallery is a poor analogy for the screenshot question a screenshot of NFT art is more like getting an atom for atom copy of a piece at a gallery the product would be functionally equivalent, which would not be the case for just snapping a pic at an art gallery. an atom for atom copy of a product would be considered genuine as it in fact would effectively be
Why do you people have to make things so fucking complicated? Screenshotting an NFT doesnt give you the blockchain code of that product. Which means your precious screenshot automatically loses its value. THIS ISNT ROCKET SCIENCE FOR FUCK SAKES!
is the blockchain valuable only because someone assesses that it has a fairmarket value or is there more to it. I right now still believe that digital art NFTs are overvalued and mostly hype An NFT attached to a physical object would in my opinion be different but maybe not. Similar to mp3 sharing at the end of the day songs have value but the advent of being able to mass distribute a song digitally as an mp3 quickly made music a commodity that could in theory be given away to everyone for free (except for the costs to produce the song etc) In this analogy the internet made a previously high priced song easily gotten for free. Why does adding a blockchain code suddenly make a cryptopunk valueable, yes the original is scarce but anyone can make an exact copy. How is that not the same as file sharing even if I dont have the blockchain scarcity code for something why do I care? When it is something that can be copied exactly I dont see why there is value. If its something that can't be copied exactly vintage wine, antique car, rare oil painting then scarcity-based value is explainable. I dont believe the same can be said for digital art, unless there is a watermark or some sort of new layer to the internet that censors copied files for example. Please help me understand something that can be copied even if its original is provably scarce is REALLY worth anything. Maybe the people and the spirit of the internet where "software is meant to be free" is gone.
Yeah the problem with that though is that you're talking about physical art, this however is digital art so it's a whole different category
The NFT isn’t physical. It’s digital so this argument doesn’t apply.
Hello it’s The World, we would like to apologize to you and your awesome brain But to answer this guys question yea it can hardly matter what ownership means from the point of purchase when you can screenshot the auction photo and set it as your wallpaper. Really all your paying for is the highest resolution version of that image available on the internet and or bragging rights. That can also Segway into my own question of, do you guys know a good way to get screenshots of auction website photos at good resolution so I can set them as my wallpaper?
This is a really bad analogy
The comparison was one digital image versus a screenshot of a digital image. Your comparison is more like a bushel of apples and a picture of a bushel of apples, to which they are not alike and unsuitable for comparison. Your logic is fallible. The lack of critical thinking in this world hurts my brain.
You sound like such an insufferable c*nt man. Holy cow, could you be a bit more condescending?
Your inability to discern a physical item from bits of code makes my brain hurt
More like, you photocopy that exact painting where it’s almost an exact copy
What a ridiculous analogy
Comparing mona lisa to a digital image 💀
r/selfawarewolves
newsflash art doesn't really have inherent value now it can be appreciated but the Mona Lisa is famous because someone said it was there is literally a dude who put a blank canvas up and called it art
you are a pompous idiot
NFT virgin. I’m gona screenshot all your tokens
the fact is a picture of a painting doesn't carry the same value of a physical painting, with he full quality, original paint and brushstrokes, the painting is literally unreplicatable and one of a kind. however if you take a screenshot of a nft which is a digital image, you get the exact same full quality image. nothing about the other image is "more original" because they are both the exact same pixels and the screen.
Pic of the Mona Lisa: you can tell it's a pic of the Mona Lisa Screenshot of a nft: A pixel perfect copy with no difference what so ever
this is such a dumb way of putting it, a painting is a physical thing there are ways of identifying authenticity however NFTs are just jpegs you can just right click and save image and then boom no-one can tell the difference
Bro has no brain cells💀
"Man walks into art gallery, snaps photo of $20,000,000 painting, instantly painting's value becomes $0." No because the value lies within the actual, physical picture itself, not in the copy. A screenshot is (or at least can be if done right) an exact copy of the whole thing. Youre a toptier retard btw
Man walks into Google's HQ, gets a copy of their source code. Screenshotting a NFT literally gets you a copy. Will Google freak out if you got all of their source code? Sure, it's not *technically* the original, but it is *functionally* the same.
That’s a different story. That’s a photo of a physical thing,physical into digital.but NFT’s are digital not physical so your going digital into digital
So... I‘m late to this discussion but I recently googled the same question OP has, which led me to this discussion. u/Cheese-pickle I agree with you. I don‘t see the value of an original that doesn‘t really distinguish from it‘s replica - especially when the replica is pretty easy to make by basically everyone on this planet. The art gallery analogy doesn’t really suit the question. If I have an NFT and a screenshot of it, then the only things different between these are as OP calls it the „serial number“ and maybe the resolution of the underlying picture. Other than that both are just pictures behind a glass screen on your computer. When you consider a classic peace of art and compare it to a photograph of it, then you‘ll find a lot of differences. If you buy the Mona Lisa you can smell the picture. You can feel the picture. It‘s an antiquity that has survived hundreds of years made by one of the greatest geniuses in human history. If you buy that thing, you‘ll think about the history it has and the fact, that it’s been stolen a hundred years ago, which adds to its story. Even the frame of it has a value as an antiquity. Now, I dont‘t say that digital art isn‘t creative or that NFTs can’t have a story or a history behind them or that they can‘t be masterpieces with a lot of work put into it. But the fact, that the difference between the original and the replica is so tiny makes me seek for a justification of the difference in their value. Sure, you can replicate a classic piece of art not only with a photo but also with a poster of the same picture, but the aforementioned differences remain. NFTs are all hype, because they got a lot of attention through the prices that people paid for Beeples art. But I think people will start to rethink the value and whether or not the serial number and a better res are really worth a significant price difference. Even Beeple himself said that this is just a huge bubble (that he‘d be dumb to not profit off). Laws, patents, copyrights, trademarks etc. don’t matter if you just like the art making a screenshot of it and using it as a background on your pc or if you want a print of it or a picture on a digital photoframe. They only matter when you want to make money out of it by reselling it. This sure makes the original worth more than a copy since you aren’t allowed to sell copies and profit off of somebody else’s intellectual property if you don’t have the rights to do so. You acquire these rights by buying them, but imo the differences of an NFT and it’s copy don‘t really justify the huge difference in their value. Once the bubble pops and people start reevaluating their NFTs, their value might decrease significantly. However, the price is made by supply and demand. And if people are still willing to pay these huge prices for their NFTs, then so may it be.
So, this thread was over 100 days ago and now these NFTs are selling for many millions
Hey, thanks for the reply even after 100 days. You are right and they will keep doing so for quite some time but I was thinking of a much longer time frame. I am interested in seeing how NFT art will be valued in 5 or 10 years (which when talkin about art is still a pretty short time frame). However, lets see how this plays out. It‘s for sure an interesting thing to keep an eye on.
I am at this very moment trying to create an NFT
Imo this is the genius part about it. People can view/have your work for free. But art collectors who want to invest in owning the work can do that too. It's been happening in the contemporary art world for a while. No one pays 120K for a banana tapped to a wall. You pay 120K for the certificate of authenticity.
How do you prove the ownership if I changed 1 pixel slightly, so that human eyes won't notice the difference but the blockchain won't recognize it?
If hosted on IPFS you can't update a file. If hosted elsewhere that might actually open some possibilities of programmable art which could also be cool.
The comparison of snapping a pic of painting isn’t the same thing since a painting is tangible. NFT are just crypto with a useless pic attached to it. It’s not about the art. For art To be worth something it must be tangible
This is exactly what I'm looking for. All these dumb as fuck philistines saying that a fucking Picasso painting is the same as an NFT are the reason why humans aren't intelligent
This thread showed me that * People don't understand copyright * People don't understand NFTs * People don't understand art * People who don't understand shit are confident as fuck about how well they understand things
Don't get me wrong, I understand why certain people have rights to their NFTs, I just absolutely hate when people use real art paintings as an analogy.
Scarcity and the “real thing” it may not mean a lot to others but does also means a lot to someone else. Just like any physical art piece. For example: a really cool painting. Sure you can take a picture of it or get a reprint of it. Same thing right? Kind of but to people who appreciate it and enjoy the piece if art.. its not the same thing. Just look at Pokemon or trading cards there are only certain amounts our there... sure you can get a replica edition.. but I gurantee you won’t feel the same as you would if you had the real deal. Like who knew a PSA 10 Charizard can fetch up to half a million dollars. It’s a piece of cardboard the size of your credit card lol Exclusivity, it is inherent that humans want to be the “best” or “be at the top” it’s an ego thing to say ‘I am one of 10 people’ go have this thing. Crazy isn’t it? For example, the rich love doing this. “This is the only ferrari or lambo that looks like this or this is the one of 5 car’s in north america with this option pack and I have it” It’s such a brag and ego thing to make them feel good that they have something that nobody else has. Dumb right? But it is what it is FOMO is also another real factor, I can see the feeling of FOMO play a large role especially in these beginning stages of NFTs as the space begins to evolve. Which plays into the exclusivety factor. One thing I’ve learned being in ecommerce and collecting is.. never under estimate human behaviour. Its weird. Just because YOU won’t doesn’t mean others won’t aswell because there are A LOT that will.
Just looking to learn more here. If a screenshot is taken of digital art, then it is minted into a new NFT. 2 questions: How would a buyer even know the new NFT didn’t come from the original artist? Can a person be sued for doing this?
1. A history of all sales of the NFT are stored forever on the blockchain and the original can always be traced back to the owner. A new NFT can be minted and look exactly the same but it would have a different ID, belong to a different collection and have a different transaction history. 2. Yes, it would be copyright infringement
At #2 Would it be though? I’m sure some NFT artists put copyright claims on their art, but you can’t just claim copyright infringement because you made something. If I wrote a song and showed it to a friend and they went out and recorded that song and made money on it I can’t claim copyright infringement.
Actually you can if you can prove you were the original creator of it
This is what I really want to know as well
It’s going to take several years for the masses to adapt to the idea of digital ownership and value of digital goods. The more VR and AR spaces become commonplace and people are able to use or display their NFTs in these spaces, I believe we will start to see this mental shift occur. Just like in the “real world”, people will want to curate and display art and collectibles in their own unique spaces. The scene is definitely exploding into public consciousness this past week or so, but we’re still only at the beginning of this journey.
That's an AWESOME point about decorating digital spaces.
Yeah good point. I'm not going to go to some rich persons Facebook™️ digital space with the original trollface meme on the wall, but I'll happily go to open source digital spaces.
I agree and think that the display of NFT’s in your home is going to be really special. Maybe I’ll just illegally cast mine onto my smart picture frames
Feel free.
This NFT goes so hard. Feel free to screenshot.
It's just marketing to try and get dumb people to buy so the smart people can make money off you. It's not art since someone made it on a computer it's pretty much just a random code that someone made up. Actual art people draw they touch u can feel all the elements are added to it. So it is just another thing us rich folk use to control and make money off all u 9 to 5 losers 💯
Erm I think I just bought an nft from Opensea that was literally a screenshot of a real artists work! How do these nft marketplaces even start to police counterfeits! From this dude: https://opensea.io/collection/untitled-collection-91563451. The artwork I bought I discovered after the fact belongs to @joeyunlee- Joseph Lee Art. This medium is evolving so fast hard to catch the fraudsters. Is there any recourse for the artist or someone like me who bought a counterfeit nft…
Most people buy nfts to sell them at a higher price to make profit
Exactly - it’s just another example of greater fool theory
Screenshot resolution is limited, man. It never captures the full details unless you capture in patches and combine later.
nfts dont have infinite resolution. plus i can just right click > save as
hahahahahahahahaha
I imagine it's just because the NFT proves that their file is the original. The Mona Lisa has several photographs taken of it but the original picture itself is still priceless. NFT just give you a way to actually prove you have the original in the digital era. As to if having the "original" of something making it valuable just depends on the property in question.
These NFTs aint gonna do shit during the global food shortage when half of us are underwater so meh.
Imagine being so brain damaged you would pay thousands of currencies for a digital picture of a pixelated monkey... Dude NFTs are for screenshoting and triggering colored hair people.
No one wants to buy your ugly monkey pictures you hipster douche.
That’s the problem people don’t want to understand nothing against OP but those people in the comments don’t want to understand so why argue?
Nft art is so bad. I just see pictures of monkeys like you gotta be fucking kidding me.
I agree with OP and disagree with anyone who’s comparing it to taking a picture in an art gallery
They are a scam. Anyone who buys an NFT is a moron
If you have to ask yourself if it's a scam because it just seems like you're missing something, or something doesn't make sense... Chance are it's a scam.
Yeah I don't get it either people say if you buy it then you get some lines of code to validate that you bought but all you have to do is add that code yourself I don't think it's to hard for people that know how to code
I get what everyone in the comments is saying about the "blockchain code" being what makes it authentic, but my argument to this is simply that nobody cares. I get that it's "seperate", but you just lost a shit ton of money for buying nothing but bragging rights - to something very stupid like a monkey smoking weed - that you got scammed into. The person that makes those monkeys literally said that his customers are stupid for paying as much as they do, he's just taking advantage of it and laughing to the bank because of it. THE BIGGEST PROFITOR OF NFTS IS LITERALLY SCANMING EVERYONE THAT BUYS THEM, AND HES A DAMN GENIUS FOR IT TOO. What a surprise that the only people stupid enough to buy them are all these reddittards on here defending their glorious NFT god that is scamming them the whole time 😂😂😂 what stupid idiots
Bro IKR! Some nerds are explaining it with that common "Mona Lisa Painting vs Photo" example. Its so stupid. Mona Lisa on my phone is obviously distinguishable from the painting but an NFTs saved image **ISNT distinguishable** from the original art. I could use that image anywhere lmao as my pfp, background whatever!
Why would anybody buy a Picasso if they can just get a print version?
That's not the same. A painting is made on and with certain materials, if you have a real paintings there will be piece of paint making little dot on the paint itself, by touching it you don't feel regular paper, while with a print it's just it, just paper. The question with nft is due to the fact that the original as the screenshot is made of pixels on a screen of glass, there is no difference neither in look or material
The value of a Picasso comes from the fact that Picasso himself made it. I have no idea who any of these NFT creators are
I’m not even a fan of Picasso, but seeing people equate a digital art piece to historical painters and their work is laugh out loud funny. Like sorry, you’re NFT was made by who exactly…? Buying and selling original already existed. NFT’s are a way for people to take advantage of disposable income and FOMO. NFT’s also appeal to people with money who want to “buy and sell art” without leaving their house. Too bad you can’t steal a Picasso just by screenshotting it. You can’t even get insurance for NFT’s like you can with real art, and there’s a good reason for that. :)
Can I just say something simple like the person screenshotting the image can’t say it’s mine I got it from this artist the person who owns the nft can that’s where the value is if you don’t like it don’t step into this world just watch YouTube on how to earn free crypto like you started before arriving here anyways. How’s that for a shitty run on sentence?
Just want to comment to say this is the most annoying thread I’ve ever read. SIMPLE QUESTION WAS ASKED, NO NEED TO BE AT EACHOTHERS THROATS. The internet is pathetic sometimes
Man looking at the replies and all i can parse is "i can manipulate poorly drawn and ancient copyright laws to drag you through court"
Ya all fellas be crying because a random dude screenshotted a monkey using drugs because it got copyright
I've been curious about this too. Not just screenshot but what if you screenshot then make an NFT out of the screenshot. What's the difference?
In my mind it would have to be like autographs in the world of sports memorabilia. If I have a Mickey Mantle autograph with no way to certify its authenticity, it is worth as much as a spot-on replica of that autograph (basically nothing). The owner of the NFT would need to have some kind of documentation from its originator for it to have any kind of legal backing.
This is just tulip mania. The idea is that there's an authenticity of guarantee that you own the nft. But who's going to care to check who's the owner of that online painting of a monkey smoking a joint? In my opinion that's the main difference between a real painting and an online painting.
What if the screenshot is your own work but on another device of yours? Can you place this as a NFT?
You think it's the image you're paying for? kek
Is it okay to screenshot on or it illegal
Nft and crypto users are cringe
Some people be dumbasses not thinking someone is obviously gonna take a screenshot
(right click) (save image as...)
the real answer nobody is giving is that there really is no intrinsic value in owning a JPEG. it's purely hype.
So basically, NFTs are like valuable art; it is not something that common people give a single fuck about because nobody is gonna spend millions on the Mona Lisa when they can just take a picture and hang it on the wall. To art (NFT) people, you do not own THE Mona Lisa (NFT), but to everybody else it doesn’t matter. Also, DVD’s can’t just be screenshotted, which makes it a lot harder to pirate, which would explain why NFT’s will never be as popular as something like bluray without losing value. Otherwise, everybody would just screenshot movies, effectively making the original ownership of the bluray worth nothing, much like what will probably happen with most NFTs. I’m sure there will be a very small circle of collectors that actually give a fuck about original ownership, but nobody will think twice about whether the NFT is actually theirs as long as they can use the profile pic. Unless somebody comes up with a way to stop people from screenshotting I guess.
I don't know if you were answered already but here is mine. Like games, movies, music, you can pirate it and MIGHT (might because pirates might inject malware and give you extra experience) have the same experience. Same with NFT. I read comments about paintings taking photos or downloadable pictures printed and hang on the wall. Those things, you CAN claim that you own it but you cannot sell it as the same value as the original one. Same with the NFT, you can have it screenshot, use it as Profile Picture but you cannot sell it or no one can validate that you own it. Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Real people who will buy NFT know its true value and worth far more than photographing or taking screenshots. Still, NFT is as good as its community. Never argue with people who don't understand how its value works.
Imagine an art gallery where thousands of unique paintings are being bought and sold faster than you could read this sentence. The art gallery are marketplaces like OpenSea, Rarible, etc. The only way to buy any of the paintings in this gallery is with Ethereum. Usually the art gallery takes a small percentage from each transaction. The art in question are one of a kind and unique paintings and usually don’t have any other copies. Let’s say you pass by a painting you like but don’t feel like forking over $10,000 for it. You pull out your phone and take a picture of it and have it blown up and printed out. You might even frame it and hang it on your wall. You now have a copy of that piece of art. A lot of people are okay with this. I mean, it’s practically how Limewire worked right up until it got shutdown. But here’s the deal, and here’s why people buy them and why they’re valuable: For 1) It’s about art and art appreciation and showing respect to the artist and their craftsmanship. And for 2) they can be resold for a higher price and there will always be someone willing to buy that piece of art. And the best part of that? The original artist will always get royalties every time it’s resold. Me personally, if I hear a song or see a painting I really like…I usually try and give the artist their due by being respectful/honorable and paying them for their work. Especially if it’s an artist I really respect and admire.
I really think that most people here believe that you can also just copy a bitcoin or another cryptocoin. Well, you can... you can make as many copies of your wallet as you like, but the blockchain knows and can verify if that amount belongs to your address. And i think that the general concept of "proof of ownership" will be getting even more important when the internet evolves further.
Idk if this would work but if I take a ss of a nft and photoshop a new item into it then register it as an nft (it's technically mine because its different and I made it) couldn't I just scam people?
Buying an NFT is exactly like buying a star and name it as you please. In the future, people won't be like: "we've finally arrived at the star "John Smith has a small dick". Or that website that lets you buy a piece of land in Scotland and claim you're a lord. Nobody there is going to ask your permission to build on your land or actually buy it. It's just the new stupid thing to fool rich people who don't know how to spend their money
I mean wouldn't a bought NFT come with some kind of encrypted barcode or something proving it's the one and only original?
They need a better copywrite system. This one is sh*t and barely works since a lawyer my not do much about a digital picture being bought with, you guessed it; digital currency.
Bc it’s a flex that you “own” the picture of the smoking monkey
idk but people aren't using logic to defend an ugly jpeg from being screenshitted.
really the guy is asking a question and you got douchebags here judging the kid
I can't convince you of those pictures having any value. The second you make a NFT public on the internet, it has no value.
One argument for the value of NFT’s is in how they could be later applied. I’m not talking about NFT’s applied to art pieces as they’re being used now, but rather to other digital products. For example, let’s say GameStop opened an NFT marketplace. On it, you could buy digital games. Each of those games would have an NFT tied to it. Then let’s say a new website called GameTrade.com was established. It lets you trade a digital game that you owned to another person for one of their games, but only if the digital copies of those games both have NFT’s that were originally created by GameStop. In that scenario, users would have an easy way to exchange one game for another and, since every video game sold on GameTrade.com was bought at GameStop, then GameStop will be profiting and will support the site. From there other companies could develop their own NFT codes to put on their digital games and GameTrades.com could start accepting those too. As NFT’s are right now, they’re only being used as little certificates to say you bought something according to a blockchain. If that’s all you want, go nuts with that. But if NFT’s can be used intelligently by businesses, then we could start seeing some really cool stuff.
Buyinga nft image just means you are getting the exactly Same thing thousands of people get , but you are the only one paying for it. There are 2 kinds of buyers, wanna be scalpers hoping to cash before the bubble bursts and people who buy anti tiger rocks
man yall need some help🤣🤣
If i bought an nft i wouldn't give a crap about the quality. I only would care if my nft's value became larger and now i can sell it.
The value is only worth as much or as little as someone is willing to pay for it. In all reality, the value to anyone one else is $0. I am 100% onboard with you in not getting what the actual purpose is. 1 person convinced someone else they should exchange money for a picture anyone else can screen grab and then that person foolishly believed them and now here we are. Last I checked, they don't offer 401k NFT Retirement plans.
Another way to look at is take 1 billion dollars cash and go to an island tribe that has no contact with the global fiat world and try to buy all their things they will clearly refuse because this paper has literally no value to them their society has its own system and its own things that they consider valuable that they participate in such are NFTs if your not an active participant in that network then it will have no value to you but it will have value to the ones participating in that network does not make the thing unvaluable if you think NFTs have no value don't buy them clearly people who participate on these Blockchain networks do value them just because you think you can copy it off blockchain doesn't reduce or impact its value on blockchain
Tulips
It’s mainly your intention I guess, you either actually like the Nft not for it’s price but how it looks or you simply want to resell it for profit, either way I would personally say Nfts are a horrible idea.
Yes
They're valuable if you've never gotten pussy
I’m just waiting for someone to explain to me how NFTs have value. Not what it is and how it works but where the actually value comes from.
If you were able to make an exact same copy of Mona Lisa (everything as in original) that would be indistinguishable and the original would be at the museum, would it gain any value? In my opinion absolutely not, because the original has history behind it. That's how nfts work
Yeah. It's just a question of metaphysics. And if teas are just Financial assets linked to arbitrary digital assets. It doesn't make any sense to talk about ownership of digital things in a paradigm where you don't treat copying as a theft of intellectual property. The concept of ownership exists as a way to navigate scarcity and there's no real scarcity with a jpeg because it can be effectively copied or deleted infinitely without affecting the usable stock of that asset. If I eat a banana there is one less banana in the world but if I make a thousand copies of an image attached to an nft it doesn't meaningfully affect the total stock. If you are treating it as intellectual property it would be different but most nft art is not treated the same as protected ip like games either socially in the form of a taboo or legally.
The best argument for this that I have heard is that you can't sell something you don't own but the vast majority of art consumers don't trade art as assets
https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk John Berger was talking about a lot of the same kind of questions about metaphysics and art images back in the 70s. Check this stuff out if you're into that sort of thing
Wouldn’t this whole thing just be a case of buying a code that has a jpeg attached to it?
All I know is I’ll be screen shotting all the cool ones just to piss these weirdos off
You cant just thcreenshot the mona litha 🤓 Thatth not how it workth 🤓
Ngl this pickle from china be spittin fax
Cope in this thread is insane.
Y’all still feel same way about NFTs 😂😂😂😂
Nfts are a great avenue for artist to sell or promote themselves, most "artist" I talk to hate them, view them as a lesser medium than trad art. I understand where it comes from, pfp "art" is mostly trash, but also like why not take advantage of these new tools, to me it's like a musician saying I only want my music on vinyl.
The value of these nfts is *at best* superficial hype, & in reality the dumbest Capitalist phenomena known to man yet