🧭Recalibrating 🌍Worldbuilding

Curious what people’s thoughts are: 🤔 

The poll is anonymous, but would love to hear your reasons if you would like to comment & share ✨

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

/cal 

Photographer, Artist, Web3 Educator, IP Lawyer, Patent Agent, Explorer 📸⛰️✨ 

 Building /flowcast with /mindfulness 🌊

https://wanderloots.com/links

I voted yes because we're being sold on digital scarcity. An artist reposting it defeats the purpose entirely

Web3 content strategist, product marketer, creator of Is This The New Internet? Podcast, stewarding /newinternetpod 
https://linktr.ee/newinternetpodcast

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?

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

This isn’t my first Rodeo. This licensing clause is shit for artists and rehashing much of the worst of web2. To make this less opaque - once you upload, Rodeo can use, reproduce, and distribute your work in any way they see fit, for as long as they want, anywhere in the world,… https://t.co/dWaiG9akYH

Amadon

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?

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