Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Curious what people’s thoughts are: 🤔 The poll is anonymous, but would love to hear your reasons if you would like to comment & share ✨ https://frame.weponder.io/api/polls/28693
10 replies
3 recasts
7 reactions
marv 🎙️ pfp
marv 🎙️
@marvp
I voted yes because we're being sold on digital scarcity. An artist reposting it defeats the purpose entirely
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Compare this to IRL though: I can print my photos as stickers (introducing scarcity) and then can sell that as a signed print, a 1/1, and no one who bought a sticker would care in the slightest. If we distinguish between contracts as the form of scarcity (aka the provenance), doesn't that introduce enough differentiation that we maintain scarcity? e.g., rodeo = stickers, which is different than minting onto your own sovereign contract as a 1/1?
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
marv 🎙️ pfp
marv 🎙️
@marvp
The *if* is a big one, because it's not being differentiated in this way for the wider market. On the whole we're being sold jpegs, and their only value is that it's ours to own, complete with a whole lot of rights normally associated with the rights owners. And to mention Rodeo specifically, they're just translating old problems onto a new medium with some additional extra muddying of the waters https://x.com/amadon/status/1877118861012873361?s=46&t=cyjzo9_32FqX5nRiHi7Jfw
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
My reading (not legal advice) of the terms you shared above is that there is no distinction between posting on rodeo or posting on instagram. The purposes of reusing Original Content is for promotion and is a standard clause in post-based platforms so they get a license to display the content that's added to their platform. "a whole lot of rights normally associated with the rights owners"; there's actually not a lot of rights, there's only one single right: the right of resale. Buying an NFT transfers the right to resell that specific token. Any licensing or IP associated with the Original Content DOES NOT transfer to the purchaser. So, in that case, if what you're buying is the ability to resell a Rodeo token, on Rodeo via their secondary market, what you're being sold is not the broader "JPEG", but is instead a "Rodeo JPEG", which is inherently distinct than a "Callum produced JPEG" Thoughts?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
marv 🎙️ pfp
marv 🎙️
@marvp
Hm right, the "full rights" are only true for a handful of projects like BAYC. I think as long as it's clear that we're selling stickers of the art rather than the art, it's fine.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
BAYC specifically gave up their copyrights and enabled commercialization. E.g., if I sell you a photo NFT, you DO NOT have the right to reproduce (copy) in any capacity. You can't print it, you can't do anything with it really. Technically, you can't even display it on your own website, as that would be reproduction (though embedding the NFT might be different). However, there are obvious limitations, and the artist in most cases would love if their collector displayed the work on their website, and would likely love if the collector printed a copy of the photo. But converting the photo into a poster and selling it would be a no-go (commercialization) So there's more involved with the social contract between the collector and artist, because legally, all you purchase is the right to resell (at least, that's my understanding) So the question becomes: what makes it clear we're selling stickers? Is the platform sufficient? e.g., EVERYONE knows that rodeo sells for $0.30, which is equivalent to a sticker?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction