Jump to content

Non-Fungible token


Recommended Posts

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

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 by inoneeye
  • Like 1

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Glenn McCreery
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

[...]

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

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.

  • Like 1

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

? 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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...