One of the key issues is the often widespread confusion surrounding the rights that buyers acquire when they purchase an NFT. Some buyers think they acquire the underlying work of art, and all its accompanying rights. However, in reality, they are simply buying the metadata associated with the work; not the work itself.
Some of the confusion may be caused by the amount of money spent on the tokens. When pixel art can be sold for over USD 1 million, it is easy to assume that the purchaser has acquired more than a string of code.
If you buy an NFT, you’re not buying any rights or interests or anything in the “associated” artwork - or any artwork at all, honestly. The owner of the interests in the artwork that was used to get you to buy the NFT still retains everything. They can prohibit you from displaying, using, or in any way exercising any rights at all in their artwork. You haven’t even purchased the digital equivalent of a copy of an original artwork - you’ve only purchased metadata, which doesn’t give you any rights in the art, even a single copy of it or the right to display it. It’s far, far less than a license agreement for a copy of a film - buying an NFT of a film wouldn’t give you the right to exhibit that film.
The clientele I am discussing are multimillionaires generally under age 45. The collectors are ultra shrewd businesspeople. Most of them are tech savvy as well.
The actors at the top of every pyramid are always shrewd business people. Or at least act like they are.
If you buy an NFT, you’re not buying any rights or interests or anything in the “associated” artwork - or any artwork at all,
Al,
You are misunderstanding something. If I paint a painting and sell it you are not buying the rights or the copyrights. Yes you get the canvas with oils on it.
The major collectors put the art into storage. The collector and the world may not see the art again in the collector’s life time. Some storage is by airports such as in France because there are taxes to export the art. An American collector might never see it in person.
This is about money.
Art is money. Most of it is worthless. Very unique work assuming a particular piece is not worthless is like printing money. Meaning if you looked at a coin collection of much older gold coins money was produced. Individual art pieces can provide that coinage of sorts.
The meta data is not the copyrights, it is not the aesthetic. I am not claiming otherwise. As far as some of the art represented by an NFT there is a coinage that can have value.
Most of what artists are creating as NFT art is not selling. Even at the top of the market it was not selling. You are assuming all of this is a non thinking rip off. That is not really how the investment process plays out.
Again most people do not trust Wall Street. For you not to trust crypto is where most people are.
Wall Street has a ways to go down.
Crypto and NFTs falling are acting out the market forces. Okay.
If I paint a painting and sell it you are not buying the rights or the copyrights. Yes you get the canvas with oils on it.
Yes, exactly. And that’s the point. When you buy a painting, you are not acquiring the copyright - but you are acquiring all of the ownership rights to the original artwork. You - and only you - own the original physical instantiation of the artwork. You have ownership rights to that original, rights that no one else in the world has. And in nearly all cases, those rights that you’re buying (ownership of the physical original) are the most valuable rights associated with the artwork.
But that’s not the case with an NFT. I’m not pointing out that when you buy an NFT you’re not getting all the rights to the artwork associated with it. Rather, buying an NFT gets you none of the rights to the associated artwork.
You’re not buying an original of the digital art. You’re not even buying a copy of the digital art (with certain exceptions not really relevant here**). The NFT conveys no interest or right whatsoever in the digital art. The NFT is a token, not the artwork - it’s a separate thing that conveys no legal interest, right, or ownership at all of the artwork. After you buy an NFT of an artwork, you have no greater ownership interest or right in that artwork than anyone else on the planet. The NFT conveys no right at all - not even a single instance of it that you could legally put on your computer or display on the wall of your house.
All you’re buying is a unique version of the address of the digital art. To use a real world example, it’s like if the Louvre sold you a piece of paper that said, “The Mona Lisa is hung on a wall in the Salle de Etats, in the Denon wing, approximately six feet off the floor and centered.” Obviously, if they sell you that piece of paper they’re not selling you the Mona Lisa. They’re not selling you any interest in the Mona Lisa. They’re even not selling you a copy of the Mona Lisa. If they sell you that piece of paper, you have no more of an interest in the Mona Lisa than I do. You own the piece of paper, but you own nothing in the art itself.
So I’ll leave you with this question - when you buy an NFT, what interest do you think you’re buying in the associated artwork?
(with certain exceptions not really relevant here**).
OCD - forgot to note the exceptions. Some very small NFT’s will incorporate the digital information of the artwork into the smart contract itself, rather than just the ‘address’ of the artwork. Nearly all of them don’t, because putting information on the blockchain itself is expensive.
Owning the original painting is not owning the ownership rights. That is the copyright. You do not get the copyrights.
The artist with the copyright can do as much as s/he wishes with the creation. You can not.
You get a canvas with oil on it. Nothing else. It is a placeholder. Maybe if you as a wealthy collector hang it you will like it? Maybe?
Before NFTs all art was highly questioned as well. You are just moving the questions to the newest technology. Nothing else has really changed in the discussion. Plus we can go back to the old oil on canvas and have this discussion as well if you like.
So I’ll leave you with this question - when you buy an NFT, what interest do you think you’re buying in the associated artwork?
What metadata is needed for an NFT?
Metadata is data that provides information about other data; in the case of an NFT, it describes that NFT’s essential properties, including its name, description, and anything else its creator feels is important. - google results
Al,
That google result is taken out of context. Most NFT artwork is worthless in the marketplace or of very low worth. The issue is any work’s place in the advancement of western art history. Some of that is commercial. Some of it is the new design element. Some of that is the history of the artwork. Some of that is the history of the artists. But a lot of art and artists have a lesser value. The market place is not simply stupid.
Again people here are totally distrusting of Wall Street, yet many of you are invested in stocks and bonds riding them down.
Al you are turned off by one avenue for investing. You are basically cursing it out.
I do not buy NFTs. I am not interested in the volatility. I am also not invested in stocks and bonds right now. I am not interested in that volatility.
I am not swearing off of buying anything. I am searching for risk vehicles with very good yields.
Swearing off of things is simply a good strong defense against believing or buying in. I do not operate that way. I wont buy or believe anyway if that is not low risk and good yield.
OCD - forgot to note the exceptions. Some very small NFT’s will incorporate the digital information of the artwork into the smart contract itself, rather than just the ‘address’ of the artwork. Nearly all of them don’t, because putting information on the blockchain itself is expensive.
OCD - forgot to note the exceptions. Some very small NFT’s will incorporate the digital information of the artwork into the smart contract itself, rather than just the ‘address’ of the artwork. Nearly all of them don’t, because putting information on the blockchain itself is expensive.
Al,
I had misread that the first time scanning.
You mean the art is in with the contract? The two are then on the blockchain linked properly together?
Owning the original painting is not owning the ownership rights. That is the copyright. You do not get the copyrights.
I know you don’t own the copyright, but you’re wrong that owning the original doesn’t give you ownership rights. When you own the original, you have 100% ownership over that physical object. No one else has those rights. And they’re (typically) those valuable rights associated with the artwork. It’s not merely a placeholder, which is why the original of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers is worth millions and a poster of the same with worth a few bucks. Neither comes with any IP rights, of course, since Van Gogh’s works are now in the public domain.
I noticed you didn’t answer my question - when you buy an NFT, what right or interest in the artwork do you think you’re purchasing? We know the answer for a physical painting - you’re acquiring 100% of the ownership rights to that physical object. But with an NFT, what rights to the artwork are you getting?
Al you are turned off by one avenue for investing. You are basically cursing it out.
Not at all. I’m simply asking you, politely, to explain your reasoning that these cryptocurrencies have value.
Remember how we got here. You started a thread on the value of crypto, and that conversation turned to whether there are any non-illegal uses for crytpo. You suggested that selling digital artworks was a use for crypto.
My point to you in this thread is simply that you can’t actually sell digital artwork through the use of NFT’s on the blockchain. You can pretend to do that, but you’re not actually selling digital artwork. You’re actually selling tokens, not the art itself. Buying the tokens doesn’t transfer a single right, interest, or anything at all in the artwork from the person who created the art to the person who is buying the token. All that’s bought and sold is the token itself. The person who buys the NFT has no more right or interest in the digital art than any other person - they don’t own anything but the token, which isn’t the artwork or any interest in the artwork.
There’s lots of ways that you can sell digital art, and to do it in a way that actually transfers ownership of the artwork from the artist to the buyer. But you can’t do it via the blockchain, because the blockchain can’t actually transfer ownership of anything that’s off the chain.
[This is the point where virtually every conversation about what crypto is good for breaks down. Enthusiasts wax about the possibility of doing a host of transactions “on-chain,” but because you can’t use “on-chain” transactions to actually buy or sell “off chain” stuff (whether houses or digital artworks), those use cases quickly degenerate into some buzzwordy handwaving.]
I’m not “cursing out” investing in digital art - I’m asking you how crypto actually allows you to invest in digital art. Because investing in NFT’s - alone - isn’t investing in digital art, because buying an NFT doesn’t get you anything in the art itself.
BTC and Eth are worth something because of digital scarcity. Does not matter who says no way. Those two most definitely behave on that basis in the marketplace. Even after falling some 70% from the highs the two of them are up massively. Digital scarcity is a very real thing and an abstract.
You mentioned that the art is not in with the NFT. This is critical. If the art is not in with the NFT you have a valid point. It is true for a lot of NFTs.
In that regard I have mentioned Arweave. Arweave is very long storage, read 600 years. Because that is otherwise an enormous issue.
Atomic mints the contract and the digital art together to store it on Arweave.
Koii.network works to create Web3 for those Atomic/Arweave NFTs to be valuable for viewership.
This method using those three tools will be my avenue. I have sussed out what you are discussing. You have valid points with the other Inter Planetary File System method of storing NFTs. The art is not bound to the contract in the IPFS system. That matters as you are pointing out.
I never said a lot of people are not “messing” up. I agree with you. The above solution is what I searched out.
I am not saying digital scarcity will maintain a stable value. The entire thing is problematic.
The reason an NFT for digital art is valuable regardless of Ethereum values has to do with art being on the cellphone…or TV, desktop etc…it is viewable to the owner. In the palm of a human being’s hand things gain value. Note anything you do not pick up in a store you are much less likely to buy. Digital art in your hand is worth more than art on your wall at times. The bundling by Atomic/Koii of the contract and NFT for Koii display is important. You are on the mark with those thoughts. I would not do it any other way.
The western art history answer for some of the value of this art is the development of the 8 design element of motion in other wise static images. Along with 3D art. This development in time goes beyond painting with oils.
This is critical. If the art is not in with the NFT you have a valid point. It is true for a lot of NFTs.
I have sussed out what you are discussing. You have valid points with the other Inter Planetary File System method of storing NFTs. The art is not bound to the contract in the IPFS system. That matters as you are pointing out.
The bundling by Atomic/Koii of the contract and NFT for Koii display is important.
Why do you think, though, that “bundling” the art into the contract changes anything? Heck - what does “bundling” even mean in this context?
You’re still not selling any right or interest in the art when you sell the token. When someone buys the NFT, they’re still not buying the art. They’re buying the NFT. The fact that you stick a representation of the art into the NFT doesn’t change that. The purchaser still isn’t acquiring any interest in the artwork from the creator of the artwork.
This not a technology problem. It’s a legal problem. The token is not the art. That doesn’t change if you glom on digital copy of the art into the token by whatever means. There are lots of ways that you can legally transfer ownership in art - even digital art. But creating a token that is “associated” with that art, even if you “bundle” the art into the token (which, again, what does that mean?), does not do that. You’re not acquiring any rights to the art by buying the token. The blockchain and the cryptocurrencies aren’t actually useful for selling digital art, because they cannot replace all of (or even any) of the off-chain activity that has to take place to actually buy digital art. It’s just a slow and expensive payment mechanism.
Yes they are buying a token denoted by the specific artwork.
It is an individualized token in that regard. Just as a painting is an individualized canvas with oil on it.
But when you buy a painting, you’re buying the painting. You’re not buying a token of the painting. If you buy a token of the painting, you’re not buying the painting.
The premise of NFT’s (and a lot of other blockchain use case proposals) is that “tokenizing” artworks allows the artworks to be bought and sold on the blockchain. Or video game items, or whatever. But that’s not how ownership in those things can actually be conveyed (transfer of the token does not transfer any rights in the artwork).
If you buy a token it is denoted by the digital art.
If the digital art and the contract are stored in separately that is strongly preferred to keep it honest.
Most paintings are worthless as well. It is amazing how artists can get a few thousand dollars for a worthless painting. That is far more common than a digital artist getting a few hundred dollars for an NFT.
If you are looking for me to make this concrete for you I have tried. When a younger person holds their phone and looks at the art it has value to them. It is art. They love seeing things on YouTube as well. When you go into some younger people’s homes there is no art on the walls. It is not something some of them are thinking about. It can be odd.
Art is not the paint or the digital. Art is how the artist feels creating something.
Selling art is about the marketplace. Tokens denoted by individual digital works CAN have value.
Paintings you would find dumb in the MoMA have value even if there are millions of digital copies. It is more than the oil on the canvas. The physical quality is not really the aesthetic quality alone.
The cotton making up the bill is not worth anything.
The law makes it worth something as tender.
The forex makes it have international value against other currencies. That trading is of a number in a column. There are no dollar bills in the forex exchange. There are no silver dollars involved. There is no gold behind it. There is just a computer with an accounting column entry. That is all any of us here are dealing with. You have been chasing that for decades.