Mighty Hal Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 1 hour ago, vodou said: ... no more than we want some Brazilian bootleg comic of a cover art we own. I suddenly feel the need to own a Brazilian bootleg comic of a cover I own. drdroom and HotKey 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joefixit2 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 This whole concept is just confusing as heck. I feel like I need to go sit on my porch and yell at the kids to get off my yard. is there a lot of turnover in the NFT world? Just wondering if people are trading or selling them actively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 14 hours ago, joefixit2 said: is there a lot of turnover in the NFT world? Just wondering if people are trading or selling them actively. Kenny Schachter Gets Sucked Into the Surreal NFT Vortex… and Makes a Fortune Overnight in the New Virtual Art Market Our columnist describes his entry into the wild, revolutionary, and highly confusing art market springing up around virtual artworks. Kenny Schachter, February 24, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 Okay, we've been on this for 10 days...okay to poke fun yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natty Bumpo Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 I’ve cracked the code... Crypto art (NFTs) is for fans of crypto who are also fans of popular art, so it’s basically a Blockchain manifestation of a Funkopop, where you mash up two things people like (pop art and toys) and sell it back to them as a lesser thing of dubious value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqn83 Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 On 2/27/2021 at 5:03 PM, vodou said: 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). This. Exactly this. You own the art. It's just like listing our stuff on CAF. People can still download the image and make copies, etc. But they'll never actually own the original. On 2/27/2021 at 3:13 PM, Will_K said: 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. Well, technically you can't actually pair an NFT with something physical. There has to be some digital manifestation of the physical art, and thats what gets tied to the block-chain. So yes, you can technically sell off the OA and keep the NFT that is tied to the digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Here’s how to think of an NFT. Let’s say there’s a webhosr for a message board. soneone writes an original joke, or posts an original digital image on the web message board. That message with the joke or image is time and date stamped in tvat message board. It’s frozen in time. People can copy the joke of image a d post them a million times in a million different places. But the original list with the joke and image are still accessible as a reference. Now imagine that the original post is encrypted and can only be accessed by the current owner of the encryption key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 2 hours ago, aqn83 said: So yes, you can technically sell off the OA and keep the NFT that is tied to the digital. And this would create a very interesting dynamic, IF the traditional comic art buyer mostly wants the physical and the "traditional" ( ) NFT buyer mostly wants the digital image and neither is terribly bothered by having what they want but not what they don't. If a dual-track market results, assuming no actual legislation or crypto-contract limitations, would both tracks be robust? Maybe! That Kubert cover for $25k that everyone is pointing to. I haven't seen it, but knowing what the Kubert boys do (shee-out I don't even know which kid it is!)...I probably wouldn't like it or want to own it. BUT let's say I did...I'd want the physical (assuming hand-drawn first, and digitized second) and really wouldn't care about the NFT/digital pair at all...as long as the price for the physical post-break-up made 'value' sense to me. I mean...I wouldn't be paying $24,500 for it and letting the other dude have the NFT/dig for $500, ya know Now the NFT-lovin' dude...might not feel the same way, I really don't know. That's who we are not hearing from, yet, around there: the NFT-lovin' dude. He may or may not have a notable perspective on the physical, and blindly putting words into "his" mouth by speculating isn't super productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will_K Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 3 hours ago, aqn83 said: Well, technically you can't actually pair an NFT with something physical. There has to be some digital manifestation of the physical art, and thats what gets tied to the block-chain. So yes, you can technically sell off the OA and keep the NFT that is tied to the digital. Going by what Jason described, the NFT and OA... are... paired together... forever. Can you sell the OA separately ?? Yes. Should you ?? In theory, you've agreed not to separate the two. The OA can even be sold by accident. As I mentioned, it's possible that the OA is lost and shows up at a garage sale one day. Maybe it's the old "my mother threw out my OA when I went to college" problem. If the OA is lost, you're technically now allowed any transactions with the NFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timely Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 On 2/19/2021 at 4:26 PM, dichotomy said: I turned around and I was being hit by Non-Fungible Tokens. The first instance was a livestream by Jim Lee earlier this month. Then a plethora of announcements this week from Christies, followed closely by Essential Sequential and Felix Comic Art. Most of us are fuddy duddies about the digital art aspect and I get it. But look closely at proof of ownership. This is the essence of what blockchain was supposed to be. I remember when BTC/LTC/ETH etc first ‘flared up’ in the public eye. This is like that, with the fervor and vigor behind it, but also backed by ‘the man’ and ‘the machine’ (both of who were left out of the crypto boom), but more significantly, has a very clear and definitive purpose. Think a grading service, but without the self-interest. Copies of artwork are already a problem - there’s a whole Kirby thread about this already - so the proof of authenticity and proof of ownership aspect of an NFT for REAL artwork is very tempting. It’s one of the very reasons why some people watermark the artwork they post. Starting now we should really all be doing that. If you haven’t spend a few moments wondering what is stopping a computer from reading a scan of artwork and recreating it, with a brush and ink, then you should. With a little tinkering any motivated home forger could wreck havoc. We’re lucky that our hobby has been quite isolated, but I believe that it’s time to start tightening up the lines of ownership and authenticity. Public sharers may have a bit easier time establishing authenticity, but what about the unknown black holes? Or imagine when you approach an auction house to sell a piece for you, and they politely ask for the corresponding NFT... Digital Art - many of our favorite artists, new AND old are working digitally now. Some finish traditionally but many do not. I know some of these digital artist intentionally produce some pieces traditionally because of the hobby and lucrative money that can be made. As a result, we’ve seen spirited attempts with mono-prints etc. Surely this is better. A clean file, certified forever as the one only true original. Imagine then the other functionality that could be built in. An instant royalty for creator and owner whenever the image is used commercially. Something like that may justify a price that approaches what might be paid for traditional art, because then over time you might make that money back. Or make money on a piece just for owning it. That sounds yummy. NFT enforcement - with the backing of the establishment this will be easy. Imagine an active google crawler and board of arbitration. Every commercial image is checked for it’s NFT. An image without an NFT can be compared to a database and fined/billed/censored if it is found to be in violation. Or, an artist discovers their work is being used by someone on Etsy in some inappropriate manner, now they would have an avenue of recourse. Finally, remember, that just as there are people out there who have more money that you, there are also more people out there who have more Crypto than you. Over the past decade people in hiding have amassed immense crypto wealth, and it’s still hard to spend. The crypto millionaire may have trouble buying groceries (well, not really, but kind of), but they love to find value for a place to park/convert their wealth). 27.5 ETH may be a lot to someone who has to buy it from scratch, but there are many people who picked up ETH when it was between $1-$5 ONLY 5 YEARS AGO! That is HODL. Buy $1000 of coin in 2017. Wait 4 years. Celebrate. In any case I think this is here to stay. So dust off your digital wallets and put on your thinking caps. How will they get you? Dude, they will start giving you a token for free when you buy artwork. We have to figure out how to token the work that already exists, but soon ALL the new artwork will have one. Discuss, be happy! I look forward to seeing what Felix and Jason talk about on Tuesday. I’d rather talk about Non-Fugitoid Turtles!!! ESeffinga 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstojano Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 So I was all old man on this until I saw Pascal Blanche offered NFTs for some of his pieces. Full digital artist, awesome stuff. I could see the appeal here. I can't see the appeal of pairing a physical object with the NFT, makes no sense to me. It only makes sense as a way for digital artists to sell "originals" or limited runs. But the reality it is all speculative, you cannot put it on the wall, you can look at a google image of the exact same image on your computer, so it all seems like a cash grab for the artists and a speculative playground for others. If you think explaining the significance of your bronze age page to a house guest is trouble enough imagine their reaction to a string of blockchain code. How much would I pay for a Pascal Blanche NFT? Not the unaccepted current offer of 2k cash for 10/10 of that image run. So it's back to brush strokes and tape marks for me. The Voord and Will_K 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Submitted without comment: Financial Traders... except to add... and... and, finally, ... alexgross.com 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) This guy gets a bit repetitive and is a bit too much in love with Pokemon, but, I think his general message is correct - NFTs have, almost overnight, become one of the biggest bubbles ever. They're a great idea with a huge future (IMO), but, right now, most prices are totally detached from any semblance of realistic sustainable value and have just become an epic speculative FOMO pump that will create a huge number of bagholders (speaking mostly of NBA Top Shot and a lot of the art projects out there selling for thousands/tens of thousands for nobodies and wannabe artist influencers, and hundreds of thousands and even millions for the top names like Beeple thus far): I saw that there was a survey of NBA Top Shot buyers and close to 90% of them were in it purely for the flipping potential. That is no way to build a long-term, sustainable market. I think we'll see an epic bubble, followed by an epic crash, after which NFTs will build themselves back up again in a more sustainable manner not based 90% on a gigantic speculative FOMO pump. Edited March 5, 2021 by delekkerste alexgross.com, Randall Dowling, hmendryk and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 34 minutes ago, delekkerste said: and close to 90% of them were in it purely for the flipping potential. Yep. That's why I asked about your renewed interest in cards, because the hype is huge on speculation. You're smart, you won't get in over your head and anyway you're collecting for the right reason: fun. But that's like nobody but you and two other guys Will_K 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 On 2/27/2021 at 5:45 PM, Will_K said: 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, F Not fair use, sorry. The fact that you are taking a theoretically possible way for the copyright holder to make money is usually a factor used to indicate it is not fair use. Fair use only can apply if it falls within a recognized category under the copyright law, like parody or opinion. alexgross.com 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Peck Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 "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." Only if you own the copyright to the character. Remember alot of the not comic art uses characters owned not by the artist but by the publisher. Example Kubert's Batman NFTs. People think the artist have a copyright on the image even if its of a character owned by DC or Marvel but they do not. The publisher just doesn't enforce their copyright when an artist draws of of their properties for a con drawing, commission or now part of the NFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Someone was (half) joking about turning tweets into NFT’s the other day. And that’s when I knew these were a joke. Kohei 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESeffinga Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/crypto-art-show-ucca-beijing-1949592?utm_content=buffer3d506&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=news&fbclid=IwAR1O-CEDu-hGl96dFT43hATsjJrtAAfS-e0oucDS9sASuunKOlNLVY80IW0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman_fan Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Scott Adam’s announced he is doing an NFT for his Dilbert cartoons. One version will be normal and one will be the same except dilbert drops the f bomb. And an NFT was auctioned for the 1st tweet on Twitter is on track to sell for 2.5 million who would pay for this stuff? Beats me but when the tulip craze starts up again, get in and make your money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alxjhnsn Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 An article from today's NY Times:After a flurry of more than 180 bids in the final hour, a JPG file made by Mike Winkelmann, the digital artist known as Beeple, was sold on Thursday by Christie’s in an online auction for $69.3 million with fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
