glen_h Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 It seems that there is now an NFT, or Non-Fungible token, which allows for ownership of digital images. That is, a digital proof of ownership, using blockchain technology. It seems that this might be useful in digital photography. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) It seems that this might be useful in digital photography ? Maybe. Strange to me that people pay for digital ownership only,(unless copyright is stipulated) and that the emotional value of ownership replaces the ability to touch the physical representation- tangible. and with such high monetary value in many cases! But It's leading us somewhere but where eludes me. 70mil at auction for a digital copy of "Everydays: The First 5000 Days," 2.5 mil for the 1st tweet. 250mil asking price for a sex tape. Probably it's leading somewhere but right now it just seems surreal. For the present there are some photographers it seems to be working for - so far. What is an NFT and Why Should Photographers Care? Edited March 13, 2021 by inoneeye 1 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 “It effectively is a way to own a digital good,” Dinch said. “We look at the blockchain as this global source of truth of who owns what, " What's this "We"? NFT, so nearly an anagram of WTF.:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) According to an article in the Guardian at, Non-fungible tokens are revolutionising the art world – and art theft, NFTs are revolutionizing art theft by "tokenizing" other peoples content, without their permission. " Once an NFT is created, it can be digitally traced for ever. And unlike a simple image file, for instance, an NFT can’t be duplicated, giving it a similar cachet to an original artwork, and enabling the sort of transactions that have seen the field garner mainstream interest over the last month. But while the very technology of NFTs prevents them from being duplicated without permission, there’s nothing inherent to the sector that controls who can make an NFT in the first place – a fact that has caused dismay to some artists, who have found their work ending up in the “control” of people who had nothing to do with its creation............." Edited March 13, 2021 by Glenn McCreery 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 I can only ask one of the more common questions here on P.net: IS THIS FUNGIBLE? Zoomar Sport-Reflectar 500mm f/5.6 Kadlubek Nr. ZOM0110 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 13, 2021 Author Share Posted March 13, 2021 It seems to have a different root. It seems that fungible has the same root as function and defunct, but not that one. Have you tried it? -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 Proof of ownership is only as secure as the provenance in evidence of that ownership. A NFT may provide evidence of that provenance, but not the validity thereof. Nor does proof of ownership prevent unauthorized copying of images, and an NFT embedded in the image can be removed or rendered useless in a number of ways. Most of my audio recordings are flagged as plagiarism on social media, even though they are original recordings of unrelated musicians. A statement to the effect of that provenance is sufficient to remove the flag. I suspect that ID of pirated images will boil down to the same technique - physical comparison of that image with a registered version. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 Have you tried it? If that was meant for me and the Zoomar, yes. Report on how surprisingly well it did in spite of everything at Zoomar Sport-Reflectar 500mm f/5.6 Not that it matters, but for five years I managed a many-millions-of-dollars budget; but, ALAS, it was mostly non-fungible, so I knew the word had nothing to do with fungus. I was just funning you-all. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 So, non-fungible but not non-fudgeable? Like clothes being spongeable while also being dry-clean only? WTF still springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 14, 2021 Author Share Posted March 14, 2021 Proof of ownership is only as secure as the provenance in evidence of that ownership. A NFT may provide evidence of that provenance, but not the validity thereof. Nor does proof of ownership prevent unauthorized copying of images, and an NFT embedded in the image can be removed or rendered useless in a number of ways. (snip) For physical art, there are paper "certificate of authenticity", only as good as the provenance of the source of the certificate. Also, the certificate doesn't tell you that there are no uncertified copies around. In the case of paper certificates, it is difficult to show that a specific certificate goes with a specific art object. In the case of NFT, you can digitally verify that it belongs to a specific digital file. Again, it doesn't protect against uncertified copies. Most often I don't collect things like that, but some people do. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 [...] Also, the certificate doesn't tell you that there are no uncertified copies around. That is the whole point of certificates. Therein lies their value. You either get one, to certify something or another. Or you do not, and then you have something that is uncertified something or another, i.e. probably not that something or another. I.e.: that you have something is only part of the ownership (read: value). You must also have the certificate to have complete ownership (read: value). Now if there are uncertified copies of certificates... Maybe they should invent something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 15, 2021 Author Share Posted March 15, 2021 Well, for example, someone might make a photographic copy of a painting. If I like the look on the wall, I might not care. If it is especially valuable, I might not want it on the wall. But yes, value is a strange thing. 1 -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 But yes, value is a strange thing. I think people that buy art only to store it away in a vault are more strange. Which leads us to art as commodity, but that's an entirely different dicussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 15, 2021 Author Share Posted March 15, 2021 I think people that buy art only to store it away in a vault are more strange. Which leads us to art as commodity, but that's an entirely different dicussion. I suppose so. But how about people who collect non-art just to store away. It seem that some people collect expired film just to store, and not use. I suppose some has artistic packaging so it could be considered collecting art. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 It seem that some people collect expired film just to store, and not use. Guilty on the first count, but I'm gradually working my way through it! Bit of a difference, though, between a box of film worth, at most a couple of quid, and a painting/drawing/photograph that's worth a small fortune and made to be viewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 15, 2021 Author Share Posted March 15, 2021 I mostly try to buy old film with the plan to use it. Not that I am against not using it, or never getting around to using it. Old VP works very well, and old Verichrome not as well. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 I love old film But for museum shots these days, digital is sooo much easier and superior Canon 5D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 So, non-fungible but not non-fudgeable? I plead the fifth amendment on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 I want to be able to hug things that I bought. This seems like a fad like Beanie Babies, although even with those you wind up with something that is tangible even if they have lost most of their economic value. . So who cares you have ownership of a bunch of 1s and 0s? At least with an Ansel Adams, you can stick it on your wall. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 ? Maybe. Strange to me that people pay for digital ownership only,(unless copyright is stipulated) and that the emotional value of ownership replaces the ability to touch the physical representation- tangible. and with such high monetary value in many cases! But It's leading us somewhere but where eludes me. 70mil at auction for a digital copy of "Everydays: The First 5000 Days," 2.5 mil for the 1st tweet. 250mil asking price for a sex tape. Probably it's leading somewhere but right now it just seems surreal. For the present there are some photographers it seems to be working for - so far. What is an NFT and Why Should Photographers Care? A fool and his money are soon parted. 1 Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 I want to be able to hug things that I bought. You can’t hug a vacation, a movie you stream, software you download, insurance you pay for, cable service, advice from a doctor, or all the other intangible things we live with and purchase daily. This is not an argument in favor of spending a fortune on NFTs. Just one for intangible realities. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 A fool and his money are soon parted. As someone once said: "It beats me how a fool and his money got together in the first place!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 You can’t hug a vacation, a movie you stream, software you download, insurance you pay for, cable service, advice from a doctor, or all the other intangible things we live with and purchase daily. This is not an argument in favor of spending a fortune on NFTs. Just one for intangible realities. I'd rather have a cuddly Beanie Baby. :) Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 29, 2021 Author Share Posted March 29, 2021 Now I know that NFTs are real. Last night on SNL, they had a skit and song about them. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now