😡 NFT - I'm in total ideological conflict with the idea AND the technic.
Today I saw my art " Yin and Yang of world hunger" (license: CC non commercial/non derivative) on OpenSea platform posted by someone. What a shame. #nftart is open door to all type of scam...
Marble card too displays my art (and probably at origin of the 'tokenisation'): https://marble.cards/card/82125
Speculating on this art I made against world hunger to help non-profit organisations like World Food Programme is wrong in many ways.
Original URL of my art: https://www.davidrevoy.com/article43/yin-and-yang-of-world-hunger
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
( thanks @tiar for finding the URL and the report)
Good news: it looks like my art and my name is now removed from this NFT non-sens. 👍
( https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x35368c20f70766d528afa8c91b1b47e2735cc7fc/82125 )
Thank you for your messages and support.💚
I'll finally can focus on something else (releasing a new video tutorial and coloring more Pepper&Carrot pages) 😇
🤑 🤮 🤑
@davidrevoy NFT is a really harmful scam, both environmentally and socially :(
@davidrevoy whattt! It is a no respect of liscence. A little mail for direct explenation . 🤔
@davidrevoy I'll pay for you to register the copyright if you want to take legal action or otherwise try to crash the NFT market by pointing out that it contains copyright violations.
@davidrevoy The circle in the center now appears blank? https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x35368c20f70766d528afa8c91b1b47e2735cc7fc/82125
@davidrevoy Oh, I see what's happening. These are supposed to represent web pages, not specifically artwork. Their entire business model is based on theft: they don't own the pages. They don't own the image. But they're sure happy to sell them.
Thank you for the proposal. Yes, it looks like they are selling ... webpages of art...?
They did act quickly for removing the preview ( I mentioned them on Twitter https://twitter.com/davidrevoy/status/1370149089439014913 ).
I took the liberty to make a full screenshot of the page before, for archive.
@davidrevoy Now all of the "newly minted" cards are missing any image from the actual page. Which makes me think they may be genuinely concerned about infringing copyright. It would be hard to make a fair use argument when the image is such a big part of the card. The snippet is an easier case for fair use, but given that the cards derive their entire value from being unique references to the original web page, it seems like one might be able to argue that even the URL is infringement.
@davidrevoy I think the fact that a lot of the pages include artwork may just be because such pages make better-looking cards.
Since anyone can register and submit a URL to be turned into a card, it would be interesting to try to deliberately construct a card that would make an optimal case for a lawsuit, not for the money but to discredit the whole concept of NFTs.
This is why, after not doing it for a few years, i started putting copyright "bugs" on my work again, after reading about a woman whose fotos were stolen off her Flickr account for a T-Mobile ad campaign.
...and hell no, they didn't pay her.
...and what really galled me was that it was T-Mobile — a big-ass corporation with a big-ass marketing budget which can afford to hire a big-ass ad agency which ALSO has a big-ass budget.
...but they steal work from photographers and try to get away with not paying.
@davidrevoy It's one thing they sell tweets and not-theirs artworks, but *who buys it*? Like, I don't get, why would anyone do that? I get why people would buy stuff on Redbubble & co without checking the seller because the design is cute, but here, when you don't even get anything? Can anyone explain it to me?
@tiar I don't understand either. 😐
Maybe buyers have the feeling to own a small 'unique' part of the art. Even if it is a digital number... Like owning the Sha of a commit on Git. Imo, it's just an abstract speculative market....
This article is where I learned about what was NFT: https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq (I recommend) , and also the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token (a bit too hard, I couldn't understand it at first, technical)
@davidrevoy I think the part where they called it "a playground for mega-rich" is the most accurate description...
The only time I need some kind of rights except for the right to look at an artwork is when I want to make a derivative, for example a study of a photograph. It's useful, sure, but then, why wouldn't anyone else have the right to study it too?
And in any case, what's important is who made it, not who "owns" it. No one cares who owns the van Gogh or da Vinci paintings, as long as they keep it secure. Other than that? I don't even know who owns those canvases, the important thing is the painter, not the owner. The same goes for instagram art or whatever people try to steal with NFTs now.
Even if that was legit, and dehenne-thief was a legit owner of the "card" now... who would care about that? It would still be David's art.
I'm pretty sure this is illegal in all nations that recognize intellectual property. They could do this only with material licensed under CC-BY or equivalent.
@davidrevoy these are crooks selling to idiots that think they have the right to anything.
The same kind of people that would give their SSN to an IRS agent that just called them.
I'm all for the DMCA takedown notice. Do it. At least you would have record of an attempt to preserve your i.p. and they can't claim it as abandoned.
The interesting part; I think they cannot remove it. They can remove the 'front-end', but the token is now forever on their fat blockchain.
It's like wanting to remove a Git commit far away in your history, but without --force, rebase or permissions.
I wonder if they thought about the legal issues it could have.
Also NC seems like it would preclude being sold.
Also what is wrong with people.
This NFT thing seems like yet another scam just to get people to pay attention to cryptocurrencies.
The whole cryptocurrency market is a giant confidence scam. It only has value as long as people believes it has value.
There's some inflation from being the world reserve currency but it's smaller than the asset inflation.
Theres about 2 trillion US dollars in circulation, the US GDP is about 20 trillion, the total value of real estate is about 30 trillion, and the stock market is around 50 trillion
The larger stores of value are theoretically backed by something. Stocks and real estate represent ownership over a thing. To be fair ownership requires the willingness of a culture to enforce ownership and under a severe enough social disruption ownership could change.
But that's different from fiat currency or cryotocurrency where the value comes from people being willing to accept it because they can exchange it for something else.
This is theft. Your art was stolen. And it's bad.
Le réseau social de l'avenir : Pas d'annonces, pas de surveillance institutionnelle, conception éthique et décentralisation ! Possédez vos données avec Mastodon !