Hmm. I think you changed my mind a bit about these. I had a problem understanding where the value in digital goods like this was. Its not like Splinterlands cards that have value because "they do stuff".
I guess, yeah, you own this. Its not just photo you took online. You can print it out and hang on the wall and youd know its yours.
I think i get it.
Im curious though, you think this could work for music? Music would be a tougher cookie to crack i feel.
It's already working for music.
the real value lies in the fact that I can prove Julia is the original artist, and the provenance (the data of who made it, when, who was the first buyer, etc).
Art speculation and selling art relies on this one thing: provenance.
A fake painting that looks exactly like the Mona Lisa has zero value. That's because the value comes from the artist, and knowing what work came from the artist.
With this data intact, the art becomes more valuable, and also, Julia's work on Super Rare is being collected and the list prices for her work are way higher than what i paid for this one. She's an established crypto artist. But I think this is her best work...
That piece is definitely supreme.
The issue I see though is that you get the finished piece, but do you get all the resources? Like the PSD file and a contractual agreement that you own full rights?
Because a physical art piece IS EVERYTHING (and all great art has certification and even an administrative body of authority that can verify authenticity).
The physical art was also the resources and also what represents time invested by the artist.
So as you've pointed out.
A reproduction has no ability to stand as equal.
Digital art doesn't have that unique individuality if you're only relying on trust. Sure trust works when people respect it. But say you and artist have a falling out. What stops that artist from deciding you don't deserve to be sole owner anymore? The artwork should utilize a smart contract at the very least.
There is a smart contract, it's on Hive-engine.
The artist has to choose which license to attach to his/her art: Private or Full Commercial.
Some artists send their owners the physical art too, but that is up to the individal artists to decide.
For me, I just create digital work, now, but I am considering sending something to the people who buy my art.
If i have a falling out with the artist, it would be illegal for them to mint this piece of art somewhere else. Their reputation would suffer, which would affect their future sales.
ILLEGAL is a definitive word.
The licensing you refer to, is it Ceative Commons?
I know of it but also know it has some issues and even creating a split between proponents of it.
REPUTATION in this age I believe is overhyped. SURE an artist that plays the community game will see it as "law" but if crypto gains a much larger audience and people add 'digital assets' but don't play the community game, they would not care much for 'bad rep'. There would be many artists simply using pseudo identities to circumvent that danger. If many play it for money gain only. It's not hard to simply exist as a new identity if the last one had issues.
There's no obligation in these platforms to reveal real world identity or to be attached to only one identity.
So for LEGALITY to be applied, in a world (online) where anyone is an artist and style uniqueness not really a thing anymore.
The possibility for all these issues arising are high. It's actually.. inevitable.
That's my point.
It's not well thought through.
Like many things here.
Critical thinking doesn't seem to be priority.
I'm not against it but I'm sharing my thoughts with you because I think you need to realize the system needs improvement.
I wrote on another comment that there's possibility to use NFT for a lot more that doesn't need licensing and a need for heavy regulation. An on demand creative collaboration platform that could even reach outside of crypto as a service.
The NFTshowroomt is archaic if focused heavily on static imagery. Then when money is involved and "rights" believed to exist, it's a shaky road.
Just like the ambition of a few here to sue big tech over "loss of revenue". It's again not thought through. Crypto is unregulated and they're asking recognition in legal systems. To even proceed the case as recognized valid under law is going to be a major task. ALL projects that make that transition and/or claim need to understand that first. Regulation is what makes all those things like licensing and ownership rights valid in the physical world. Crypto is really a game of gambling in its current form.
https://emanate.live/home
i have not looked into this but i hear people are using it
Yeah i saw that, i was thinking more, pure NFT. I guess youdd have to sign off royalties in that case.