The Non-Fungible People vs Daz models

SnowSultan

maikdecker said:

Well, if You COULD see pictures of them on the interwebz already, You probably (with a high % chance) COULD also download them which would negate the need to buy them, as some uses for these could be done with those pictures alone...

 

Oh I know, and there hasn't been a single one that I would even bother to right-click on. 

I still have to know: is there a reason why anyone would buy a NFP without being able to see what it looks like first? Why aren't there previews up on their release date? I'm sorry, but anyone who drops $800 on an NFT without even being able to see it has too much money.

nonesuch00

Well no discord freebie or even discount today. Hmmmpf. 

colongraphics

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Say you are fan of Ansel Adams or David Lorenz Winston or Dru Blair. You can find poster reproductions of their work anywhere and hang it on your wall. A signed Ansel Adams print of Half Dome in Yosemite is probably going to cost a little more.  Same for Winston's "Solitude" or Dru Blair's "Power."  The artwork is the same, but  a signed print is harder to get, maybe printed on better stock, because they are limited in number so arguably more expensive. That assumes, however, there is an interest in buying.

Similarly, I can get a copy of the 8- bit cat  or disaster girl anywhere on the internet.  It is harder for me to find one that is signed, that is, has a blockchain identifier.  No one else has that blockchain identifier but the person who purchased it. That person can sell that blockchain identifier to someone else. Likewise, I can sell my signed and numbered Dru Blair print that I purchased years ago to, say, an aviation enthusiast. This person can easily get a reproduction of this same print anywhere, but probably not a signed one as easily.  This person might like Dru Blair, and might be willing to buy. Or maybe not. 

One can argue the merits and even ethics of purchasing an avatar or virtual real estate or any number of things that are not tangible objects or that you can probably create yourself, to say nothing of art theft, money laundering, and environmental concerns. That is not the topic of this post. I'm not even sure how the model above applies to a ready made avatar using assets that are readily available. I certainly have no interest in purchasing any of them, thank you. I just thought it might be useful to point out how NFTs were intended to work, so you can make better arguments and decision for yourselves. Pretentious of me, I know.

3141592654

SnowSultan said:

I still have to know: is there a reason why anyone would buy a NFP without being able to see what it looks like first?

I think the simplest answer is: this is an investment strategy that has appeared in the digital art world ... however illogical it may seem, many are using it and making money (and of course there are those doing poorly at it and losing money).

 

MelissaGT

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Say you are fan of Ansel Adams or David Lorenz Winston or Dru Blair. You can find poster reproductions of their work anywhere and hang it on your wall. A signed Ansel Adams print of Half Dome in Yosemite is probably going to cost a little more.  Same for Winston's "Solitude" or Dru Blair's "Power."  The artwork is the same, but  a signed print is harder to get, maybe printed on better stock, because they are limited in number so arguably more expensive. That assumes, however, there is an interest in buying.

Similarly, I can get a copy of the 8- bit cat  or disaster girl anywhere on the internet.  It is harder for me to find one that is signed, that is, has a blockchain identifier.  No one else has that blockchain identifier but the person who purchased it. That person can sell that blockchain identifier to someone else. Likewise, I can sell my signed and numbered Dru Blair print that I purchased years ago to, say, an aviation enthusiast. This person can easily get a reproduction of this same print anywhere, but probably not a signed one as easily.  This person might like Dru Blair, and might be willing to buy. Or maybe not. 

One can argue the merits and even ethics of purchasing an avatar or virtual real estate or any number of things that are not tangible objects or that you can probably create yourself, to say nothing of art theft, money laundering, and environmental concerns. That is not the topic of this post. I'm not even sure how the model above applies to a ready made avatar using assets that are readily available. I certainly have no interest in purchasing any of them, thank you. I just thought it might be useful to point out how NFTs were intended to work, so you can make better arguments and decision for yourselves. Pretentious of me, I know.

But there is value in those physical, hand-written signatures. Especially given the death of the artist. I don't get how there is value in a computer-generated code, which is nothing more than a link to a digital image (and in the case of these NFP's, I'm assuming a link to a downloadable folder that contains the avatar's assets, just like the stuff we would download when we buy assets on the marketplace). And in this case, who is the artist? Do we even know the person who designed the avatar, or just the corporation (aka Tafi)? So instead of me buying a picture to hang on my wall with the physical signature of Ansel Adams, I'm buying a computer-generated link to a folder containing assets that were designed by a person(s) who works for a corporation, originally owned by said corporation? *head explodes* 

It'd be one thing to buy a commissioned piece of digital artwork. Or buy a print of a piece of digital artwork (such as the prints you can buy from DeviantArt or ArtStation, etc). (And even better, I've purchased prints from a digital artist that they've even signed for me, so boom, physical signature for me...it's a gorgeous set of vintage travel-inspired posters to visit places in Middle Earth...I really need to get around to framing them all.) Anyways, I totally understand the value in all that. The buyer has the artwork, and the original artist still maintains the rights to said artwork as the original artist. I don't understand the value in buying a link to an image of the artwork (where you have no idea if it's even the legit copyright holder trying to sell that link...because I've even had the distinct (dis)pleasure of having my artwork show up on OpenSea, which was removed after submitting a DMCA, btw.) Oh, but the link is unique because it has a unique number assigned to it, so it's the only one of its kind! Ok. My 3090 also has a unique number assigned to it...it's a serial number. But how many hundreds of thousands of RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra's are out there that EVGA has manufactured? Do I care that my GPU has a unique identifier? Only if I need to RMA it. How many versions of that digital image are sitting out there because anybody can copy/save it? And is that image even big enough or high enough quality to print if you so choose? I'm rambling here, but I hope the point comes across. 

daveso

there is a merchandise store as well. you can buy little stickers to put on you laptop, or even a tshirt ... .Starting at .2ETH for  a character ended my interest. 
Anyway .......... 

daveso

nonesuch00 said:

Well no discord freebie or even discount today. Hmmmpf. 

I think that was a thing to solicit interest in the NFT gig. They went on sale so probably done. just my thought on it, nothing official.  

Charlie Judge

nonesuch00 said:

Well no discord freebie or even discount today. Hmmmpf. 

Yep. The Discord channel still shows yesterday's freebie. 

FSMCDesigns

ioonrxoon said:

It's about time they stop treating those who have no intrest in joining the nfbrigade as second class customers. I got it, they wanted to advertise this drosh, fine, but it's time to get back to focusing on what this store is all about.

maybe that is what DAZ is all about now. I am surprised that this thread has so many responses. I figure enough users ignore the NFT stuff it would send the message, it's what i am  doing. 

I have a VR game that I play often and am active on their discord. The devs brought up the idea of NFTs and the user base quickly nixxed it

colongraphics

MelissaGT said:

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Say you are fan of Ansel Adams or David Lorenz Winston or Dru Blair. You can find poster reproductions of their work anywhere and hang it on your wall. A signed Ansel Adams print of Half Dome in Yosemite is probably going to cost a little more.  Same for Winston's "Solitude" or Dru Blair's "Power."  The artwork is the same, but  a signed print is harder to get, maybe printed on better stock, because they are limited in number so arguably more expensive. That assumes, however, there is an interest in buying.

Similarly, I can get a copy of the 8- bit cat  or disaster girl anywhere on the internet.  It is harder for me to find one that is signed, that is, has a blockchain identifier.  No one else has that blockchain identifier but the person who purchased it. That person can sell that blockchain identifier to someone else. Likewise, I can sell my signed and numbered Dru Blair print that I purchased years ago to, say, an aviation enthusiast. This person can easily get a reproduction of this same print anywhere, but probably not a signed one as easily.  This person might like Dru Blair, and might be willing to buy. Or maybe not. 

One can argue the merits and even ethics of purchasing an avatar or virtual real estate or any number of things that are not tangible objects or that you can probably create yourself, to say nothing of art theft, money laundering, and environmental concerns. That is not the topic of this post. I'm not even sure how the model above applies to a ready made avatar using assets that are readily available. I certainly have no interest in purchasing any of them, thank you. I just thought it might be useful to point out how NFTs were intended to work, so you can make better arguments and decision for yourselves. Pretentious of me, I know.

But there is value in those physical, hand-written signatures. Especially given the death of the artist. I don't get how there is value in a computer-generated code, which is nothing more than a link to a digital image (and in the case of these NFP's, I'm assuming a link to a downloadable folder that contains the avatar's assets, just like the stuff we would download when we buy assets on the marketplace). And in this case, who is the artist? Do we even know the person who designed the avatar, or just the corporation (aka Tafi)? So instead of me buying a picture to hang on my wall with the actual signure of Ansel Adams, I'm buying a computer-generated link to a folder containing assets that were designed by a person(s) who works for a corporation, originally owned by said corporation? *head explodes* 

I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm just pointing out how it was supposed to work, not how it might be used now, and the complications that arose after this payment scheme was proposed by artists several years ago. 

As an aside, a counter-argument might be who decides that a hand written signature has value. Probably the market, the same market that years ago decided that little stuffed animals and comic books with foil-embossed covers had value. Not quite the same, but I think close enough. For better or for worse, it might apply in the case of NFTs as well.

benniewoodell

Charlie Judge said:

nonesuch00 said:

Well no discord freebie or even discount today. Hmmmpf. 

Yep. The Discord channel still shows yesterday's freebie. 

The coupons were honestly the only reason I was there. Got some good deals on some stuff I had wanted to snag, and picked up a couple nice freebies as well.

algovincian

ioonrxoon said:

It's about time they stop treating those who have no intrest in joining the nfbrigade as second class customers. I got it, they wanted to advertise this drosh, fine, but it's time to get back to focusing on what this store is all about.

I just checked OpenSea:

With the current price of ETH being $3,906.33, that works out to $1,142,043. Do you think more revenue came in through the store during the same time period?

- Greg

algovincian

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Aren't people essentially buying a license to use 3D assets in the case of these NFPs? Isn't it a form of DRM, or am I missing something?

- Greg

ioonrxoon

@algovincian I don't see the relevance. This is not the place they're selling nft's, nor is this the customer base. If they want to switch to nft's, then they can do that. But as long as this is an asset store, I expect it to focus on that. What they do elsewhere doesn't interest me.

colongraphics

algovincian said:

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Aren't people essentially buying a license to use 3D assets in the case of these NFPs? Isn't it a form of DRM, or am I missing something?

- Greg

Hey there! If you read further down my post, you'll see that I don't how a payment scheme originally devised for static digital pieces applies to the avatars.  You'll have to ask the folks at Tafi and Daz about that.

daveso

there is now an ad that says 75% off vehicles ..but you need to go to the DIscord place to get the code. There is no code there. 

EDIT: maybe its for new people that join

PerttiA

algovincian said:

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Aren't people essentially buying a license to use 3D assets in the case of these NFPs? Isn't it a form of DRM, or am I missing something?

- Greg

In DAZ's case, they say;

As an NFP holder, you can do anything you'd like with your NFP NFT, with the exception of selling its individual 3D components. This is commonly referred to as the Daz Interactive License

Not quite the idea that I was given for the Daz Interactive license, it's either "Anything" or "According to Interactive Licence", both can't be true at the same time.

If the NFP's are sold under Daz EULA/Interactive licence, the only thing you get with that $800, is the right to sell that NFP to someone else, compared to buying the assets at the store with corresponding Interactive Licencies.

MelissaGT

daveso said:

there is now an ad that says 75% off vehicles ..but you need to go to the DIscord place to get the code. There is no code there. 

I only use Discord to chat with a small, private group of friends...we mostly share funny memes, pet pictures, and complain about politics...and to share and keep track of weekly recipes with my husband. My husband and I also use Discord for voice chat when we game together (which is ridiculous because we're both gaming in the same room, but we wear headsets so we can't hear each other, lol). Any place that requires me to use Discord to get access to or obtain something else (even for free) typically gets a hard pass from me.  

algovincian

colongraphics said:

algovincian said:

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Aren't people essentially buying a license to use 3D assets in the case of these NFPs? Isn't it a form of DRM, or am I missing something?

- Greg

Hey there! If you read further down my post, you'll see that I don't how a payment scheme originally devised for static digital pieces applies to the avatars.  You'll have to ask the folks at Tafi and Daz about that.

Full disclosure - I have not purchased an NFP, or any NFTs for that matter. I do know that somebody's wallet can be checked for ownership of a particular NFT, and it seems as though ownership of the NFT grants license for use and the right to transfer.

What I don't understand is, from a practical standpoint, how this might equate to automatic enforcement of rights to usage (or lack thereof ie: barring usage).

- Greg

frank0314

PerttiA said:

algovincian said:

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Aren't people essentially buying a license to use 3D assets in the case of these NFPs? Isn't it a form of DRM, or am I missing something?

- Greg

In DAZ's case, they say;

As an NFP holder, you can do anything you'd like with your NFP NFT, with the exception of selling its individual 3D components. This is commonly referred to as the Daz Interactive License

Not quite the idea that I was given for the Daz Interactive license, it's either "Anything" or "According to Interactive Licence", both can't be true at the same time.

If the NFP's are sold under Daz EULA/Interactive licence, the only thing you get with that $800, is the right to sell that NFP to someone else, compared to buying the assets at the store with corresponding Interactive Licencies.

I just had to ask for clarity on this cause I wasn't completely sure as well. What I've been told is that you can sell the "complete" package but you cannot sell the individual assets individually from the set. If that makes better sense. 

nonesuch00

algovincian said:

ioonrxoon said:

It's about time they stop treating those who have no intrest in joining the nfbrigade as second class customers. I got it, they wanted to advertise this drosh, fine, but it's time to get back to focusing on what this store is all about.

I just checked OpenSea:

With the current price of ETH being $3,906.33, that works out to $1,142,043. Do you think more revenue came in through the store during the same time period?

- Greg

Questions about the DAZ 3D store's profits are always met with silence and the claim is the customer base is pretty small. Most PAs except Sickleyield won't even give ballpark except to say it's pretty good, which means, well not Bill Gates money but..I'm not worried about housing costs.  

nonesuch00

colongraphics said:

MelissaGT said:

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Say you are fan of Ansel Adams or David Lorenz Winston or Dru Blair. You can find poster reproductions of their work anywhere and hang it on your wall. A signed Ansel Adams print of Half Dome in Yosemite is probably going to cost a little more.  Same for Winston's "Solitude" or Dru Blair's "Power."  The artwork is the same, but  a signed print is harder to get, maybe printed on better stock, because they are limited in number so arguably more expensive. That assumes, however, there is an interest in buying.

Similarly, I can get a copy of the 8- bit cat  or disaster girl anywhere on the internet.  It is harder for me to find one that is signed, that is, has a blockchain identifier.  No one else has that blockchain identifier but the person who purchased it. That person can sell that blockchain identifier to someone else. Likewise, I can sell my signed and numbered Dru Blair print that I purchased years ago to, say, an aviation enthusiast. This person can easily get a reproduction of this same print anywhere, but probably not a signed one as easily.  This person might like Dru Blair, and might be willing to buy. Or maybe not. 

One can argue the merits and even ethics of purchasing an avatar or virtual real estate or any number of things that are not tangible objects or that you can probably create yourself, to say nothing of art theft, money laundering, and environmental concerns. That is not the topic of this post. I'm not even sure how the model above applies to a ready made avatar using assets that are readily available. I certainly have no interest in purchasing any of them, thank you. I just thought it might be useful to point out how NFTs were intended to work, so you can make better arguments and decision for yourselves. Pretentious of me, I know.

But there is value in those physical, hand-written signatures. Especially given the death of the artist. I don't get how there is value in a computer-generated code, which is nothing more than a link to a digital image (and in the case of these NFP's, I'm assuming a link to a downloadable folder that contains the avatar's assets, just like the stuff we would download when we buy assets on the marketplace). And in this case, who is the artist? Do we even know the person who designed the avatar, or just the corporation (aka Tafi)? So instead of me buying a picture to hang on my wall with the actual signure of Ansel Adams, I'm buying a computer-generated link to a folder containing assets that were designed by a person(s) who works for a corporation, originally owned by said corporation? *head explodes* 

I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm just pointing out how it was supposed to work, not how it might be used now, and the complications that arose after this payment scheme was proposed by artists several years ago. 

As an aside, a counter-argument might be who decides that a hand written signature has value. Probably the market, the same market that years ago decided that little stuffed animals and comic books with foil-embossed covers had value. Not quite the same, but I think close enough. For better or for worse, it might apply in the case of NFTs as well.

Bad thing about such markets and market valuation of such things is that a famous or very rich person owning something gets them crazy expensive valuations as compared to poor and working class people by the same experts for the same items.

PerttiA

frank0314 said:

PerttiA said:

algovincian said:

colongraphics said:

I think a previous post pointed this out, but I think it is worth repeating: you are not really paying for the art or the assets when you buy an NFT.  You are paying for the the signature. 

Aren't people essentially buying a license to use 3D assets in the case of these NFPs? Isn't it a form of DRM, or am I missing something?

- Greg

In DAZ's case, they say;

As an NFP holder, you can do anything you'd like with your NFP NFT, with the exception of selling its individual 3D components. This is commonly referred to as the Daz Interactive License

Not quite the idea that I was given for the Daz Interactive license, it's either "Anything" or "According to Interactive Licence", both can't be true at the same time.

If the NFP's are sold under Daz EULA/Interactive licence, the only thing you get with that $800, is the right to sell that NFP to someone else, compared to buying the assets at the store with corresponding Interactive Licencies.

I just had to ask for clarity on this cause I wasn't completely sure as well. What I've been told is that you can sell the "complete" package but you cannot sell the individual assets individually from the set. If that makes better sense. 

Yeah, selling the complete package vs individually was not the point, but "Anything" vs what's allowed by the "Interactive Licence" - "Anything" covers for example using the NFT as a merchant resource

PerttiA

The NFP page also says you have "Total Ownership" of your NFP => You can mint your own NFT's for the same, undivided content.

Edit: Or, I can mint an NFT for the NFP NFT that I have "Total Ownership" for...

ColinFrench

frank0314 said:

I just had to ask for clarity on this cause I wasn't completely sure as well. What I've been told is that you can sell the "complete" package but you cannot sell the individual assets individually from the set. If that makes better sense. 

Yes, and note that the next buyer must agree to the same terms and conditions.

In other words, even putting aside the interactive license bit, you cannot buy this sort of thing and do anything you want with it, only what the company will allow you to do (the same is true with any of the other commerical NFT schemes I've seen). The company retains control over not just the item, but also the "receipt" you're buying that links to it. So much for the "decentralized" myth that cryptobros love to parrot.

SnowSultan

I still don't understand some things about this...take a look at this link.

https://opensea.io/assets/0x92133e21fff525b16d1edcf78be82297d25d1154/4812

Am I right in thinking that this mystery NFP has received two bids, both of them well under $10 and over 99% less than Tafi's asking price? I thought they cost a flat 0.2 ETH.

And can someone please tell me WHY you wouldn't wait until this NFP is shown before buying it? That's what I think elevates this into nuclear-level stupidity, but please tell me if there's a legitimate reason.

 

edit: This link is interesting too, it looks like the tale of a guy who bought one as soon as it went public and has been lowering his asking price over and over trying to dump it.

https://opensea.io/assets/0x92133e21fff525b16d1edcf78be82297d25d1154/2598

Jason Galterio

SnowSultan said:

And can someone please tell me WHY you wouldn't wait until this NFP is shown before buying it? That's what I think elevates this into nuclear-level stupidity, but please tell me if there's a legitimate reason.

I think back to the days where we used to have fun at the concept of a "Make Art Button" with random settings for figure, pose, and setting.

I have been guilty of making the offending "Vicky with a sword in a temple" images.

It's like we've gone full circle.

PerttiA

SnowSultan said:

edit: This link is interesting too, it looks like the tale of a guy who bought one as soon as it went public and has been lowering his asking price over and over trying to dump it.

https://opensea.io/assets/0x92133e21fff525b16d1edcf78be82297d25d1154/2598

Maybe he got Madame Mim instead of Snow White 

SnowSultan

Make Art buttons didn't cost $800.  ;)   And yeah, I was imagining he probably got one with artificial eyes and her tongue hanging out when I saw that too, lol. 

I keep laughing at this giant promo one too, she looks like she's thinking "are we still doing this NFT BS?"    :D

BlueFingers

SnowSultan said:

edit: This link is interesting too, it looks like the tale of a guy who bought one as soon as it went public and has been lowering his asking price over and over trying to dump it.

https://opensea.io/assets/0x92133e21fff525b16d1edcf78be82297d25d1154/2598

And I count 10 actions on the item in the past 7 days, equivalent to more than 77 days of power consumption of the average US household. Just that one item.