NFT Ramblings 1 1

[aqn83]

18 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

NFT guarantees chain of custody and ownership of a specific digital image. But it doesn’t prevent the original artists from issuing another NFT token for the same digital image at a later date. You’d have to still get an exclusivity guarantee of some kind, which would be in the form of a contract and subject to litigation. 
 

An NFT would be better if it could be paired with physical OA. 

Or in this case, 52 different NFT tokens for this digital image by Jock:

https://makersplace.com/jock/drops/reflections-570/?fbclid=IwAR1USfMWCApQKSS2a7AfiXnEq2bQGK6HGGuXCi5J3FdAnjJsvow_s9PCbpI

Each edition (essentially each NFT) was sold for $499.

And then you have: a red variants of that same image:

https://makersplace.com/jock/reflections-code-red-10-of-10-47272/#

Edition of 10, and originally sold for what looks like $758.99 each. Looks like someone is offering about $2500 for one of these NFTs.

And finally: the elusive BLACK variant. 1 of 1.

https://makersplace.com/jock/reflection-1-of-1-47262/

Jock has not let this go yet, but he current has an offer on the table for about $5900.

 

 

[pinupcartooncollector]

3 hours ago, hmendryk said:

With my limited research I believe that is correct. Even more worrisome for me is that the art is represented in the blockchain token as a link to the digital image file. This seems to present two problems. The first is that everyone has access to the image file (a jpeg) so the owner has no control on its distribution they just have bragging rights as the real owner of the piece. I am sure there will be digital art collectors who will collect copies of the digital art they like and forego paying for the bragging rights. The second problem is, if I understand it correctly, for the blockchain link to the digital art file to work the file must remain online at that web address. If the file is removed or the host for that address is no longer in business, as far as the NFT art is concerned the owner would now own nothing.

My understanding is that there are ongoing discussions to address the problems of royalties and blockchain image links and I suspect these problems will be solved. What is uncertain is whether the solutions will be retroactive. If they are not retroactive then those spending thousands of dollars for NFT art may find them worthless sometime in the not too distant future.

The bragging rights aren't about owning the digital art per se, it's about owning the token attached to the digital art.  That's the crux of this whole thing that took me a while to figure and my 21-year-old son about minute when I explained it to him.

 

[Will_K]

In theory, you could have an NFT paired with a slabbed comic (there is a unique number and bar code).  But you should also assume that the comic was "authenticated" before it was slabbed.  Do I really need to know who previously owned the slab via the NFT??  Well, yes... who the heck scratched up my slab !!!

Edited February 26, 2021 by Will_K

[hmendryk]

7 hours ago, vodou said:

I've put a little more time into this since my initial comments that Felix replied to. First - the people that are really active in this space (active = BUYING/TRADING, not buy-curious  ) do not care at all about physical assets. Not at all. Bragging rights of 1/1 (or even 1/50 for small 'editions' or multiples) is 100% of the appeal (well that and the usual flipping, etc motivations). What YOU (or I) think about this is not the point. Further...we're hypocrites if we put much effort into defending a position against this because...we're all about 1/1 here too (or 1/50 when it comes to CGC 9.8 population reports  ). Limited and/or 1/1 is exactly that no matter "what" the asset in question is. There's supply (not much) and there's demand (it's great, plain and simple)...that describes BOTH comic art (1/1) and digital assets (1/1) and let's not forget CGC 9.8 of some comic (1/12 etc). If you can't move past this, as Felix states in that YouTube with Bill and Jason...just go home and polish your Itoyas...you've never get it.

This is 'a something' but I think the argument has been made, and it's a good one that IF you separate the asset from the NFT...neither are worth as much. The sum is of the parts is never greater than the whole. At least to The Market (um, still not us!) that's ACTIVE in the space. This is why these guys are not especially interested in physical assets with NFT to begin with (though maybe things will change over time or the tent of ACTIVE will expand to include other POVs???)...the physical will NEVER be where they want it...in the digital/virtual space!

I'm sure this stuff will get worked out, the "free" market tends to do that if left alone...good ideas get adopted and bad ideas get worked out or go away.

Questions?  

Except my comments were never about physical objects. However in the physical world the owner does have some control. They do not usually have copyrights but they have control of access to their object. With NFT digital art no such control exists. The owner has nothing more than bragging rights. Which is why the second problem is so important. If the the host of the web page goes out of business and the Internet address of the digital file (the digital art) is no longer working, the owner now no longer anything of value as the blockchain no longer has a working link. As I said, I believe these problems will eventually solved but the solution may not be retroactive. I can understand why someone might be interested in NFT digital art (but not me) but I fail to understand why they are willing to spend so much money (digital or physical) on something that may be worthless in the not too distant future due to circumstances beyond their control. If I were interested in buying NFT digital art I would wait for these problems to be solved before buying anything.

[hmendryk]

4 hours ago, pinupcartooncollector said:

The bragging rights aren't about owning the digital art per se, it's about owning the token attached to the digital art.  That's the crux of this whole thing that took me a while to figure and my 21-year-old son about minute when I explained it to him.

 

I do not believe that is correct, the bragging rights is the combination of both token and digital art. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as NFT digital art. As I understand it anyone can generate (mint) a blockchain token at relatively low cost. It is the token's link to a particular digital art file that makes one NFT digital art have more value than another. If that link becomes inactive (for example the host for the web page goes out of business) the token returns to being something of little value since you no longer can prove what it once linked to. Nor is there currently anyway to repair the problem.

[Brian Peck]

7 minutes ago, hmendryk said:

I do not believe that is correct, the bragging rights is the combination of both token and digital art. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as NFT digital art. As I understand it anyone can generate (mint) a blockchain token at relatively low cost. It is the token's link to a particular digital art file that makes one NFT digital art have more value than another. If that link becomes inactive (for example the host for the web page goes out of business) the token returns to being something of little value since you no longer can prove what it once linked to. Nor is there currently anyway to repair the problem.

That is what I have said all along. NFT is like the stock market trading and selling of the digital image and the token. Its the token that will determine value not the token. 

[vodou]

3 hours ago, hmendryk said:

However in the physical world the owner does have some control. They do not usually have copyrights but they have control of access to their object.

Nah. Physical world the creator can always dilute through publishing and recreation. As to that access...it's only as good as your security system and absence of small and large in-home and Act of God disasters. Lots of art has burned up. Lots of art has floated away too. Someday quite a bit may fall into a big crack over near California. My opinion: you're placing a lot of weight on something that isn't really that different (physical art or 'hosted' digital art). We're all 'hosting' our collections until something goes wrong, aren't we? And when it does...the entire world loses that 'asset', right?

[hmendryk]

1 minute ago, vodou said:

Nah. Physical world the creator can always dilute through publishing and recreation. As to that access...it's only as good as your security system and absence of small and large in-home and Act of God disasters. Lots of art has burned up. Lots of art has floated away too. Someday quite a bit may fall into a big crack over near California. My opinion: you're placing a lot of weight on something that isn't really that different (physical art or 'hosted' digital art). We're all 'hosting' our collections until something goes wrong, aren't we? And when it does...the entire world loses that 'asset', right?

Nah. Creators in the physical world certainly do not dilute through publishing. Generally publishing a previously unpublished work of OA increases value to that OA. And I have seen lots of recreations of Jack Kirby OA, some even by Kirby himself, and that did not dilute the value of the OA. As for access, I never claimed that owners had some sort of perfect control of access to their OA. There can always be some disaster that can seriously damage or destroy OA. But owners can do things to reduce risk if they care to. Worried about California sliding into the sea, keep your art out of California. Worried about someone printing your piece of OA in a book? Don't provide high resolution scans of your art to anyone. Like I said owners have some control over the art in their collections. But owners of NFT digital art have no control of the digital art itself. The token requires a link to a digital jpeg file. And because this must be a workable link that means the digital file can be access and copied by anyone. The owner only has control on the blockchain token.

But again you seem to be fixated on the physical aspect to my original criticism. I believe those who require a physical object will not find much attraction in NFT digital art. While the current buyers of NFT digital art are clearly not concerned about possessing a physical object. But if I am correct about the two problems I originally pointed out, do those buyers realize that the NFT digital art they paid so much for could be worthless a decade or two later when the host for the web address for the digital art file goes out of business? Those who got in early on cryptocurrency and now are virtually rich may not care, but for those who this is significant money it maybe a problem whether they realize it or not.

[Mighty Hal]

Here's an NFT rambling: Billions of dollars of bitcoin has been lost when the owners forgot/misplaced their password. One guy misplaced $220 million that way. I suppose a forgetful collector is in the same boat if his item is digital only. But what if he owns the physical artwork and its token? Can the OA be re-tokenized, or will the NFT-focused crowd now view the actual art as worthless?

[vodou]

13 hours ago, hmendryk said:

But again you seem to be fixated on the physical aspect to my original criticism.

No; you're totally wrong

13 hours ago, hmendryk said:

Creators in the physical world certainly do not dilute through publishing.

Wrong again. Any post-sale new distribution of the image is a dilution of control that an owner supposedly (according to really...just you) has. The image is thus more "out there" than before. More people can look at it for free or at a nominal cost (cover price, whatever). That's dilution baby  

13 hours ago, hmendryk said:

Generally publishing a previously unpublished work of OA increases value...

Who said anything about value? Not me. Dilution of control, since that's what you keep bringing up.

Whether analog or digital, the image can/will be reproduced widely by anybody, whether they have the legal right to or not. Be it file-sharing or photocopies back in the day (along with post-sale publication and re-publication)...all out of "your" control. This vaunted control thing...why so important to you?

13 hours ago, hmendryk said:

Like I said owners have some control over the art in their collections.

I understand perfectly well the intense desire to own something few (1/xx) or none (1/1) other than yourself owns - The "It" - but beyond that...?? Control what exactly? If digital - the only real control you have is bragging rights and relinquishing ownership. Physical? Approximately the same answer. I think you're finding a difference that doesn't exist. Further, I've never read anywhere that hosts can't change, so if one is going away...just move it? (Maybe not "you -owner" but the creator? I'm muddy on the specifics here.)

13 hours ago, hmendryk said:

But if I am correct about the two problems I originally pointed out, do those buyers realize that the NFT digital art they paid so much for could be worthless a decade or two later when the host for the web address for the digital art file goes out of business? Those who got in early on cryptocurrency and now are virtually rich may not care, but for those who this is significant money it maybe a problem whether they realize it or not.

Caveat emptor. And so what? Anybody spending more than a few bucks (or thousandths of BTC) on anything should heed this or suffer the potential consequences of risky economic behavior.

[MyNameIsLegion]

I'd like some clarity on the technology of the NFT relative to the digital image & hosting, from someone that actually knows, (no offense, but @vodou & @hmendryk I suspect both of you are mostly talking out of your bung holes on that aspect and neither of you are SMEs in that arena)  Where is the encrypted NFT held, and is it inextricably linked to the digital image, or is it an attribute of the NFT? You can have encrypted files that exist regardless of web hosting, and you can have encrypted hosting of files, and both.  Moving ISPs, domains, etc is fairly common practice, but doing so is necessarily creating copies of encrypted files, or moving files that will be encrypted. I suspect it is both.  Most data centers have active back-up, redundancy, and recovery so there's multiple copies of it in the cloud, cluster, of virtual or physical servers. It's damn hard to genuinely lose something due to hosting.  Losing your password, yeah that's a thing. If the file is encrypted, nobody (in theory) can open it without it. I'm guessing the art is bundled with the token and is unique.  Copying the art, does that copy the token with it? Or is it linked back to the token hosted elsewhere, or nowhere? I'm just curious enough to ask the question, but not quite curious enough to google this stuff myself.

[vodou]

1 minute ago, MyNameIsLegion said:

(no offense, but @vodou & @hmendryk I suspect both of you are mostly talking out of your bung holes on that aspect and neither of you are SMEs in that arena) 

Oh yeah I definitely am and admit it  

53 minutes ago, vodou said:

(Maybe not "you -owner" but the creator? I'm muddy on the specifics here.)

 

[hmendryk]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

No; you're totally wrong

Wrong again. Any post-sale new distribution of the image is a dilution of control that an owner supposedly (according to really...just you) has. The image is thus more "out there" than before. More people can look at it for free or at a nominal cost (cover price, whatever). That's dilution baby  

 

But you ignore your original statement "Nah. Physical world the creator can always dilute through publishing and recreation." That is what I was responding to. And I repeat no dilution of control there because what they are distributing is not the actual OA. Check out the current thread of DC not compensating for scans of the OA for publication. There obviously is some level of control of OA otherwise DC, Marvel, IDW etc wouldn't have to ask owners for high resolution scans.

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Whether analog or digital, the image can/will be reproduced widely by anybody, whether they have the legal right to or not. Be it file-sharing or photocopies back in the day (along with post-sale publication and re-publication)...all out of "your" control. This vaunted control thing...why so important to you?

Sure you can share low res scans (such as appearing in CAF) or poor grade physical copies (photocopies) but that is not the same thing in terms of quality as the actual OA. And so they do not dilute control. It is not that control of access is "so important" to me, it is that is one of the differences between physical OA and NFT digitial art. One can never get an absolutely identical copy of a physical OA but one can get an absolutely identical copy of digital art that is associated with an NFT. The only difference is you cannot simply copy the NFT that proves ownership.

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Further, I've never read anywhere that hosts can't change, so if one is going away...just move it? (Maybe not "you -owner" but the creator? I'm muddy on the specifics here.)

 

Well here I fully admit I can be wrong. But everything I have read indicates the token of a NFT digital art cannot be changed except for ownership when it gets sold. Which makes sense. Otherwise the current owner sell a high cost NFT but change the link to point to a low value digital art file. For instance a web page by Coindesk says "If the file is stored at a traditional web address, the NFT owner is in some danger if that file is ever taken offline". And adds "The NFT industry has solutions for this issue, but stakeholders haven't settled on best practices yet, making it difficult for buyers to assess which NFTs safely store data for the long term". It may just be me, but this sound like more than a standard risk. After all how many are willing and knowledgeable enough in Solidity (the contract language used in Ethereum used by most NFT digital art) to be sure their purchase has long term value.

[vodou]

4 minutes ago, hmendryk said:

Check out the current thread of DC not compensating for scans of the OA for publication. There obviously is some level of control of OA otherwise DC, Marvel, IDW etc wouldn't have to ask owners for high resolution scans.

Apples:oranges, you're referring to vintage (where's films were lost/destroyed, again if those films exist...almost 'no' control again for the collector!)

14 minutes ago, hmendryk said:

Sure you can share low res scans (such as appearing in CAF) or poor grade physical copies (photocopies) but that is not the same thing in terms of quality as the actual OA. And so they do not dilute control. It is not that control of access is "so important" to me, it is that is one of the differences between physical OA and NFT digitial art. One can never get an absolutely identical copy of a physical OA but one can get an absolutely identical copy of digital art that is associated with an NFT. The only difference is you cannot simply copy the NFT that proves ownership.

There is no "vintage" digital unless you're chasing Mike Saenz Shatter or something  

21st century comic art that will be NFT at first sale -analog or -digital is going to have a creator digital file that's held back by the creator. Now hard drives melt down, things happen, not every scan of every piece will always survive and there can/will be callbacks of physical originals in that case...maybe? Or not. But in this case: what control are we talking about? None. And no difference between analog and digital either, same zero control. Though it crosses my mind that unlike digital, analog art does change over time -it ages, markers fade, paper yellows, handling wear, so maybe someday somewhere some artists and/or publishers will be very interested in that ever-degrading measurably or not version over the clean digital version. Okay, sure. But really whatever to that too  

14 minutes ago, hmendryk said:

Sure you can share low res scans (such as appearing in CAF) or poor grade physical copies (photocopies) but that is not the same thing in terms of quality as the actual OA. And so they do not dilute control. It is not that control of access is "so important" to me, it is that is one of the differences between physical OA and NFT digitial art. One can never get an absolutely identical copy of a physical OA but one can get an absolutely identical copy of digital art that is associated with an NFT. The only difference is you cannot simply copy the NFT that proves ownership.

Ah. I'll just refer you to re-read my previous paragraph. Next!

15 minutes ago, hmendryk said:

After all how many are willing and knowledgeable enough in Solidity (the contract language used in Ethereum used by most NFT digital art) to be sure their purchase has long term value.

Again - who cares. Unless you're one of those buyers (and I'm certain you are not - but prove me wrong  ) or maybe just take it somewhere those buyers are? I'm not seeing the interest level here beyond DA curiosity. Are you?

[hmendryk]

2 hours ago, MyNameIsLegion said:

I'd like some clarity on the technology of the NFT relative to the digital image & hosting, from someone that actually knows, (no offense, but @vodou & @hmendryk I suspect both of you are mostly talking out of your bung holes on that aspect and neither of you are SMEs in that arena)  Where is the encrypted NFT held, and is it inextricably linked to the digital image, or is it an attribute of the NFT? You can have encrypted files that exist regardless of web hosting, and you can have encrypted hosting of files, and both.  Moving ISPs, domains, etc is fairly common practice, but doing so is necessarily creating copies of encrypted files, or moving files that will be encrypted. I suspect it is both.  Most data centers have active back-up, redundancy, and recovery so there's multiple copies of it in the cloud, cluster, of virtual or physical servers. It's damn hard to genuinely lose something due to hosting.  Losing your password, yeah that's a thing. If the file is encrypted, nobody (in theory) can open it without it. I'm guessing the art is bundled with the token and is unique.  Copying the art, does that copy the token with it? Or is it linked back to the token hosted elsewhere, or nowhere? I'm just curious enough to ask the question, but not quite curious enough to google this stuff myself.

Well I am certainly not a SME, so I guess by your standards I am talking out of my bung hole. But I am interested in the subject enough to pursue some reading on it. My understanding is that the NFT is held in a wallet. Not a physical wallet but rather software that allows you to store your assets and make transfers. There is a cost to making the NFT token too large, so the digital image is not actually part of the NFT but rather there is some sort of link to it.

[Will_K]

8 hours ago, Hal Turner said:

Here's an NFT rambling: Billions of dollars of bitcoin has been lost when the owners forgot/misplaced their password. One guy misplaced $220 million that way. I suppose a forgetful collector is in the same boat if his item is digital only. But what if he owns the physical artwork and its token? Can the OA be re-tokenized, or will the NFT-focused crowd now view the actual art as worthless?

As described by Jason of Essential Sequential, they are creating NFTs that are forever paired with physical art.  He said the pair can never be broken up.  He gave the analogy that it would be like taking a Mickey Mantle rookie card and giving half to Bill Cox and half to Felix.  Not half shares... but actually tearing the card in half.  Not sure if he counts as an SME but he's transacting sales using the model he described.

One of the reasons for creating an NFT (any NFT) is to create a chain of title (i.e. provenance).  So if the "original" NFT is lost (e.g. forgot the password), a "new" NFT cannot and should not be created.  Let's say that later on, the original NFT is recovered... then what ?  You have 2 competing NFTs ??  It doesn't seem possible that issuing a new NFT simply voids out the original NFT.  Suppose even the new NFT is lost and yet another NFT is created... even worse.  So it doesn't seem like you can "replace" a lost NFT.

On the flipside, let's say the physical art is lost... well the original NFT (if forever paired with the physical artwork as described Essential Sequential) is worthless.  If the NFT cannot "change hands" without the physical art, the NFT is... "essentially" worthless.  Now let's say some random person finds the physical art at a garage sale.  Well, that has a similar potential to finding an original copy of the Declaration of Independence.  Maybe one day you can look up lost art and see if there's a matching NFT ??  There would be a sizable reward.

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Will_K

[hmendryk]

9 minutes ago, vodou said:

Apples:oranges, you're referring to vintage (where's films were lost/destroyed, again if those films exist...almost 'no' control again for the collector!)

Even if the films exists that does not men there are "almost 'no' control" for the collector. Sure the collector cannot stop the publisher from reprinting the comic, but surely you realize there is a difference between the film and the OA? They are not identical. If you printed it out the same size as the OA no one would have a problem in distinguishing the two. The film was made for comic publication and the nuances present on OA are undesirable for publication. Now it is possible that the publisher also kept scans and this may have been done by the original artist as well. But if someone in the public wants a high res scan of the OA there is still a limited number of places for them to go to. So the owner still has some control, just not a complete one. And if someone wants to exhibit the actual OA, there is only one place for them to go, the owner. Contrasts that with NFT digital art. The owner has control of the NFT but the digital art file itself is somewhere on the web accessible to the public. Make a copy of that and it is absolutely identical to the owner's. That is the marvel and weakness of digital vs analog.

23 minutes ago, vodou said:

21st century comic art that will be NFT at first sale -analog or -digital is going to have a creator digital file that's held back by the creator. Now hard drives melt down, things happen, not every scan of every piece will always survive and there can/will be callbacks of physical originals in that case...maybe? Or not.

The creator can certainly hold back a copy of the digital file, the the NFT has to link to a digital file and that combination of NFT and that particular file that has the value. I will repeat my quote from coindesk "If the file is stored at a traditional web address, the NFT owner is in some danger if that file is ever taken offline". And is is my understanding (and would be happy if someone can prove me wrong) that currently you cannot just change the NFT.

33 minutes ago, vodou said:

 And no difference between analog and digital either, same zero control.

As I have pointed out multiple times there is a difference between analog and digital control. You seem fixated that the control has to be absolute and solely by the owner, but I don't believe I ever said that. But once a digital file is released on the web, there is absolutely no control on it and it is only the  NFT that the owner has control over.

38 minutes ago, vodou said:

Again - who cares. Unless you're one of those buyers (and I'm certain you are not - but prove me wrong  ) or maybe just take it somewhere those buyers are? I'm not seeing the interest level here beyond DA curiosity. Are you?

Considering the topic of this particular list is NFT Ramblings, I would think this is the place for such discussions. But if they do not interest you I suggest you do what I do when a topic isn't of interest, and move on. Personally I was disappointed that the recent discussion by Jason and Felix hosted by CAF did not go into the more technical issues. Seems to me to be difficult to sell something if the potential buyers don't really understand what they are selling.

[GreatEscape]

I’m slowly getting to understand NFTs and digital art, how they help creators with control and royalties.  But, I still can’t explain how owning the NFT protects you from someone taking a screenshot of the digital art and making T-shirts or prints to sell on eBay.  If someone buys Jock’s exclusive 1:1 “black” edition, how is the owner protected against Jock making a “White” or even “Black Extra Special” later on, further diluting exclusivity?

Can anyone enlighten?  Thanks  

 

[Will_K]

45 minutes ago, GreatEscape said:

I’m slowly getting to understand NFTs and digital art, how they help creators with control and royalties.  But, I still can’t explain how owning the NFT protects you from someone taking a screenshot of the digital art and making T-shirts or prints to sell on eBay.  

If "you" is the owner or artist of an NFT, I don't think you have any protection from screenshots.  If "you" is the artist, you may have protection re: copyright.

I'm basing that on @aqn83's comment with links to a couple Jock NFTs (link below).  The NFT's were "limited open editions" (sold only during a certain time period).  I wonder if each NFT is sequentially numbered.  If so, would #1 be worth more than #2 ??

Getting back to protection from screenshots... I saved 2 of the images and reduced them.  One could just blow them up and create crappy t-shirts.  I'm calling "fair use".  I hope noone sues me,

Edited February 27, 2021 by Will_K

[vodou]

46 minutes ago, GreatEscape said:

But, I still can’t explain how owning the NFT protects you from someone taking a screenshot of the digital art and making T-shirts or prints to sell on eBay.

It doesn't, and that's not the point. You guys need to do a lot more of your own research - this is a foundational concept to the thing: anybody can see it but only the NFT owner "owns" anything (aside from creator rights and revenue stream). Fighting this is like not buying a song you like because a cover band might play it somewhere this weekend. Huh? Who cares? Or like not buying an original hand-written sheet of Beatles lyrics or the hand-written set list from a show you went to and got your first 'ya know' from your girl after  memorable and priceless that experience...the FACT that others were at that show, the FACT that it was recorded audio/visually  by some furry dude in the back row and booted tens of thousands of times over, the FACT that those lyrics were printed along with liner notes in every album, cassette or cd ever produced does not, none of would, diminish your experience and your perception of value at 'owning' The Original hand-written lyrics or set list in any way. It would never matter - you've got The Original and that is that. All that to get to - that is what NFT represents paired to digital art that anybody else can copy see publish bootleg whatever...anybody with a will can do all that but they CANNOT have your NFT...unless you give/sell it to them  

Now the questions of WHY you would want it, what you'd pay to do that, or anybody would want to buy it from you for more than you paid...that's a whole 'nother thing and we all have people in our lives that wouldn't stop to pick up off the ground some or all of the art we covet and collect if they couldn't monetize it but just had to keep it. People want what they want, question the motive if you don't have it yourself isn't going to get you far. Digital NFT art - some want it, some don't. So what? What they don't want is a screenshot or any derivative of that thereof, no more than we want some Brazilian bootleg comic of a cover art we own.