DeviantArt notifies original artist about his own creation being sold as NFT

DeviantArt notifies original artist about his own creation being sold as NFT(twitter.com)

19 points by ManuelHeL 4 years ago | 6 comments

NicoJuicy 4 years ago |

Just proves that NFT doesn't even solve the only use-case that it's intended for by the fans:

- giving artists a way for protecting their art.

On the contrary it seems...

The only thing I would be surprised with, is that anyone would actually be surprised by this.

nabla9 4 years ago | |

New "fast and easy" tech solution that ignores or belittles the inconvenient details of the problem solves nothing.

Fast and easy: digitally sign raw bytes.

Slow and hard: verify that the creator of the asset is the creator of NFT (and ignoring trivial digital transforms)

Latest South Park TV-movie gets it right again: https://v.redd.it/4j3ovwqpzy581

thesuperbigfrog 4 years ago |

Artificial scarcity is artificial.

Nothing prevents someone from making copies and selling each "unique" one.

Since it is decentralized, there is no centralized authority to take down the copies (that is, a DMCA-style take down).

The "no one can censor you" upsides of decentralization are not without downsides: you cannot censor or take down others, even in cases of copyright breach.

diamond559 4 years ago | |

But will people value these knock offs the same as the one approved by the artists themselves? If I put a signed picture through a scanner would you pay for the scanned image even though you knew it was a copy? I would think it logical to assume there would at least be a big discount between the two showing there is value outside of it just being scarce, artificial or otherwise.

28uwedj 4 years ago | |

Wrong, The artwork is stored on a server. not base64. all a NFT is, is a link and a wallet address

h2odragon 4 years ago |

Socially corrosive get rich quick schemes. The harm to this individual artist may be small enough to overlook, but the incalculable harms from the lack of art that would've been otherwise produced will be with us for a while. I don't want to publish stuff for the enrichment of others, I couldn't blame anyone else for feeling the same way. (I wish i could say that better)

Can't wait for the cases of heavily invested NFT owners asserting copyright ownership because "they spent more"... Anyone betting the starving artists come out on top when those cases happen?