MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: bolsher on November 15, 2021, 07:49
-
What do you think guys, about working for nft. Selling only one copy of an image for a good one time payment?
-
It's a valid enough question, though I'm personally not interested.
But your title is a non-sequitur, as it wouldn't be microstock in that case.
-
As I understand it, you only sell the NFT 'rights' whatever they are.
The copyright, and therefore the ability to sell your images as stock, prints etc., stay with the original artist.
I'm currently rebuilding my website fotovoyager.com with a view to selling images as NFTs independent of the agencies.
I don't really understand how it works yet, but one step at a time.
I suspect that if it takes off, the agencies will be trying to sell those rights for you, taking their usual unreasonable percentage.
-
As I understand it, you only sell the NFT 'rights' whatever they are.
The copyright, and therefore the ability to sell your images as stock, prints etc., stay with the original artist.
I'm currently rebuilding my website fotovoyager.com with a view to selling images as NFTs independent of the agencies.
I don't really understand how it works yet, but one step at a time.
I suspect that if it takes off, the agencies will be trying to sell those rights for you, taking their usual unreasonable percentage.
I don't think so. As far as I know, you sell your "product" completely and it becomes buyer's asset for good. NFT transaction does not resemble the distribution strategy of stock agencies, that's why you hear high amount of money circulating around on NFT markets.
-
As I understand it, you only sell the NFT 'rights' whatever they are.
The copyright, and therefore the ability to sell your images as stock, prints etc., stay with the original artist.
I'm currently rebuilding my website fotovoyager.com with a view to selling images as NFTs independent of the agencies.
I don't really understand how it works yet, but one step at a time.
I suspect that if it takes off, the agencies will be trying to sell those rights for you, taking their usual unreasonable percentage.
I don't think so. As far as I know, you sell your "product" completely and it becomes buyer's asset for good. NFT transaction does not resemble the distribution strategy of stock agencies, that's why you hear high amount of money circulating around on NFT markets.
Looks like, unless your expressly transfer the copyright, you still own it, as the author:
(Sorry, that link doesn't work now, as you have to register to read it).
However, from what I've read generally, you do keep the copyright unless you choose to transfer it.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d96ed012-8789-4e87-bc1d-70ba76569c0f (https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d96ed012-8789-4e87-bc1d-70ba76569c0f)
-
As I understand it, you only sell the NFT 'rights' whatever they are.
The copyright, and therefore the ability to sell your images as stock, prints etc., stay with the original artist.
I'm currently rebuilding my website fotovoyager.com with a view to selling images as NFTs independent of the agencies.
I don't really understand how it works yet, but one step at a time.
I suspect that if it takes off, the agencies will be trying to sell those rights for you, taking their usual unreasonable percentage.
I don't think so. As far as I know, you sell your "product" completely and it becomes buyer's asset for good. NFT transaction does not resemble the distribution strategy of stock agencies, that's why you hear high amount of money circulating around on NFT markets.
No, you only transfer the block chain rights, not the copyright. Seems bizarre, but there you are.
-
No, you only transfer the block chain rights, not the copyright. Seems bizarre, but there you are.
That's also how I understood it.
Pretty worthless if you ask me, because the only thing that is being sold are blockchain bragging rights.
Crazy world, and for first time I really think: I'm too old for this crap.
Now, some creatives are making very decent money with NFT's, but I guess they are well established and famous in their real world niche too.
Others seem to look at NFT's as an investment. Not sure how they are doing. I'm afraid a lot of them are losing (real) money.
I still have to see the first typical microstock contributor earning money with NFT's.
There's a lot of talk, but no results. At least, as far as I know.
-
Crazy world, and for first time I really think: I'm too old for this crap.
Ha! That’s exactly what I think, too. I have a friend who is all into this stuff, along with cryptocurrency. He keeps bugging me to sell some work as NFTs. Yeah. No.
I think for some fine artists, yes. For some amazing photographers, yes. For most microstockers, no. But I agree, show me an average microstocker making good money doing this and I might change my opinion.
-
Yeah, your essentially just selling an entry in the blockchain, that happens to come with a jpg. At best, you have a non-exclusive, non-commercial license for that jpg.
-
Besides, there's the ridiculous environmental cost:
"75 kWh of electricity for one NFT
That’s the same amount of electricity consumed by the average UK home in one week!"
and
“In an effort to explain why Kazakhstan is considering imposing restrictions on new cryptocurrency mining operations, the Ministry of Energy told local media that data centers minting digital coins use 5 megawatts (MW) of electricity each hour. Just a single mining facility burns an average of 3.6 million kilowatts (kW) a month, the department stated, noting that the amount equals the consumption of 24,000 homes.”
https://jacklowe.com/2021/10/24/this-is-your-nft-wake-up-call
So I'll double down on my resounding no: it's environmental lunacy, and for nothing at all.
-
Here's a link to an article on the subject that may be of interest:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/nov/06/how-nfts-non-fungible-tokens-are-shaking-up-the-art-world?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/nov/06/how-nfts-non-fungible-tokens-are-shaking-up-the-art-world?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB)
-
even Hollywood is involved
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/investing/quentin-tarantino-lawsuit-pulp-fiction-nfts/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/investing/quentin-tarantino-lawsuit-pulp-fiction-nfts/index.html)
-
With a simple Google search, anybody can find and download the file associated with an NFT for nothing, and store it on their phone or computer, but only the owner has the right to sell it.
Lets see, people spending Tulip bulbs to buy another Tulip bulb, by selling them to stupid collectors who don't own anything, but a right to sell the NFT to some other sucker?
https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/crypto/heres-how-much-electricity-it-takes-to-mine-bitcoin-and-why-people-are-worried/#:~:text=Bitcoin%20mining%20used%20more%20energy%20than%20Argentina%2C%20according,A%20wall%20of%20mining%20rigs%20in%20Quebec%2C%20Canada. (https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/crypto/heres-how-much-electricity-it-takes-to-mine-bitcoin-and-why-people-are-worried/#:~:text=Bitcoin%20mining%20used%20more%20energy%20than%20Argentina%2C%20according,A%20wall%20of%20mining%20rigs%20in%20Quebec%2C%20Canada.)
I'll quote the important part, you can read if you want:
"Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dogecoin and other popular cryptos reached record or near-record highs this year, raising concerns about the amount of energy needed to mine the coins. Warehouses of Bitcoin mining rigs run 24 hours a day, consuming more power than the whole of Argentina. As the energy bill for crypto mining rises, so does the amount of carbon and waste, adding to the growing climate crisis. "
And as posted earlier: "The Digiconomist's Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index estimated that one Bitcoin transaction takes 1,544 kWh to complete, or the equivalent of approximately 53 days of power for the average US household. "
This will be interesting as the people who want to disrupt economics and fiat currencies, are likely to also care about saving the planet. How can they justify their diametrically opposing beliefs.
This is entertaining, one of the largest causes of climate change is Bitcoin? :o
-
The energy consumption is due to the Proof of Work mining adopted by Bitcoin and Ethereum. The NFTs are primarily powered by Ethereum which is making a big move to Proof of Stake mining which will require considerably less energy. NFT networks powered by XRP and Cardano and even Solana are far more environmentally sustainable. So it wouldn't be fair to bash all the cryptos equally. There are good ones that are environmentally conscious and which use less power than even cash or digital transactions.
Now whether it's wise for photographers to pour all their time, energy and money into mining NFTs? That's a different story. I don't think it's an alternative to even microstock at the moment and perhaps won't be one even in the distant future. But in a few years' time, it might compete with Fine Art photography outlets and if it takes off like people are hoping it would, might even render them redundant in a decade, just like the internet did to the telegram and fax machines.
-
The energy consumption is due to the Proof of Work mining adopted by Bitcoin and Ethereum. The NFTs are primarily powered by Ethereum which is making a big move to Proof of Stake mining which will require considerably less energy. NFT networks powered by XRP and Cardano and even Solana are far more environmentally sustainable. So it wouldn't be fair to bash all the cryptos equally. There are good ones that are environmentally conscious and which use less power than even cash or digital transactions.
Now whether it's wise for photographers to pour all their time, energy and money into mining NFTs? That's a different story. I don't think it's an alternative to even microstock at the moment and perhaps won't be one even in the distant future. But in a few years' time, it might compete with Fine Art photography outlets and if it takes off like people are hoping it would, might even render them redundant in a decade, just like the internet did to the telegram and fax machines.
Good points, but if it takes Crypto Coins to buy these, it takes mining to make those coins. On the other side, I see a crypto currency machine in the grocery store now. That's pretty funny. We don't mine, anyone can walk up to a machine and buy coins. Someone is making a commission on those trades.
The Staples Center is no more. Soon, it is going to be renamed as Crypto.com Arena. The name change is the largest naming rights deal ever at an estimated $700 million and it will begin to be called Crypto.com Arena beginning on Dec. 25, 2021.
Staples Canter for everyone who doesn't know the US, is the LA CA sports arena, which is used for all kinds of other large events. Staples is an office supply and printing company, Etc. Makes me wonder how much they paid for the naming rights?
I'm still watching the Crypto bubble, but after that bursts and things level out, crypto could be useful for something beyond trendy high risk investing.
-
I'm still watching the Crypto bubble, but after that bursts and things level out, crypto could be useful for something beyond trendy high risk investing.
Yeah, like the dot com bubble. It burst but the internet flourished after because of the extensive adoption during the bubble.
-
I'm still watching the Crypto bubble, but after that bursts and things level out, crypto could be useful for something beyond trendy high risk investing.
Yeah, like the dot com bubble. It burst but the internet flourished after because of the extensive adoption during the bubble.
Dot com is a modern development and useful, the nutty reactions and overly optimistic investing was something else. I'd say the same will happen eventually for Crypto. Some people who think it's a wild investment opportunity will get burned bad. But I'd agree, after the fad goes away, there are serious and various positive ways that crypto coin can be useful for a long time into the future.
Just diverging a little, crypto dot com says they can buy, sell and trade 138 different kinds of crypto currency. This will be like auto manufacturing, computers, and all kinds of other products that had spectacular growth. Oh Microstock? Anyway, then the market goes flat and I mean level not through the floor, and eventually only the best and the strongest will survive. Bitcoin and Etherium are two that I'll predict will be solid when the number drops to about two dozen viable crypto currencies.
Now about the value of those other 104 that no one will use or want? ??? ;D
-
Just put out a new post on the emerging "Metaverse" reality and how we may profit from it as stock contributors:
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2021/11/20/get-ready-for-the-metaverse-future/
-
You might want to add a couple of zeros to that 138 to get the total amount of coins that are currently out there!
-
Yeah, your essentially just selling an entry in the blockchain, that happens to come with a jpg. At best, you have a non-exclusive, non-commercial license for that jpg.
Exactly, that is just another way to sell and buy something, to pay for a purchase. Nothing else changes. Thinking that we will not need agencies anymore is ridiculous. They will adopt to new standards sooner or later. And it has nothing to do with photograph or any other form of digital product being art or not. You are the one who decides if there will be one ore million copies of the work you are selling.
Guys, take some time and study blockchains and NFT, it is the future. Agencies will do the work for you, setting up instructions ones the NFT and crypto purchases start being accepted, but you should know the basics. Photography is a digital product, so it will be affected by blockchain technology, that's for sure.
-
Nah. There’s no need for it. No benefit. Just an over complication.
-
You should be aware that getting work up for sale as a NFT isn't free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11eTOur4lPs&list=LL&index=47 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11eTOur4lPs&list=LL&index=47)
-
Nah. There’s no need for it. No benefit. Just an over complication.
That's what they said when "emails" started becoming a thing back when. Everything digital is going to be on some form of a block chain in a few years. It's inevitable, whether we like it or not. And like with any new technology, the people who benefit the most are early adopters.
-
You should be aware that getting work up for sale as a NFT isn't free.
Not true. You can put your image on rarible or opensea without paying any gas fees. On Opensea, all you need to do is choose Polygon instead of ethereum to mint your NFT. On rarible, you have the option of having the buyer pay your gas fees so you don't have to.
-
Nah. There’s no need for it. No benefit. Just an over complication.
That's what they said when "emails" started becoming a thing back when. Everything digital is going to be on some form of a block chain in a few years. It's inevitable, whether we like it or not. And like with any new technology, the people who benefit the most are early adopters.
That's right! I'm surprised than so many microstock photographers are so shortsighted. Having in mind they adopted to microstock so successfully back in the day. Guys, ask your kids for advices, it is time :)
-
Not true. You can put your image on rarible or opensea without paying any gas fees. On Opensea, all you need to do is choose Polygon instead of ethereum to mint your NFT. On rarible, you have the option of having the buyer pay your gas fees so you don't have to.
But is there a downside to minting on Polygon? Would a prospective buyer shy away from an NFT if it's on Polygon and not Ethereum?
-
But is there a downside to minting on Polygon? Would a prospective buyer shy away from an NFT if it's on Polygon and not Ethereum?
You're probably not going to sell right away even if you mint with Ethereum. The photography market isn't really that hot. But there's no real downside to minting on Polygon apart from the two minutes you spend uploading the image. Minting on Polygon is free only for a limited time and as the adoption grows, the gas fees would be more expensive in the future. So might as well mint your NFTs while you can for free. You can always open it for limited auction bidding later if you wish to.
-
On rarible, you have the option of having the buyer pay your gas fees so you don't have to.
Sounds great, but why would anyone do that? Why would they pay $150 gas fees plus whatever the price of the image is on top to get something they can get from SS or As for considerably cheaper. Yes, in that case they're just buying the image rather than an NFT (or a license for that image), but they're still getting the image. The only benefit I see to NFTs currently, is trading when it comes to high value pieces by relatively famous artists. I'm not seeing any real benefit when it comes to just owning every-day, regular pieces of art (or every-day non-exclusive, non-commercial copies of pieces of art).
-
Nah. There’s no need for it. No benefit. Just an over complication.
That's what they said when "emails" started becoming a thing back when. Everything digital is going to be on some form of a block chain in a few years. It's inevitable, whether we like it or not. And like with any new technology, the people who benefit the most are early adopters.
That's right! I'm surprised than so many microstock photographers are so shortsighted. Having in mind they adopted to microstock so successfully back in the day. Guys, ask your kids for advices, it is time :)
And the environmental issues?
Aren't 'the kids' concerned about these?
-
Sounds great, but why would anyone do that? Why would they pay $150 gas fees plus whatever the price of the image is on top to get something they can get from SS or As for considerably cheaper.
Because you aren't selling "stock", you're selling art. If your image is already on shutterstock, it's probably not wise to mint it as an nft because you're only selling a copy.
The only reason a buyer would buy your image is if he sees value in it as an investment. So he can sell it off for a higher price later. That's the limited function of the NFT market as it exists today. The gas fees are miniscule compared to what a buyer would pay for the NFT and they would happily pay for the gas if they believe they can resell your art to another bidder.
Of course, your image needs to be seen to have some intrinsic value for it to sell in the first place. The reason it makes sense to get into the market right now even if you don't sell anything for months is because it takes years to build a reputation as an artist in any space and once you do it, you're set for life and since this is the future of the art market, it makes sense to invest some time and get your hands dirty with the tech before it becomes the norm (which it will in due course of time)
-
Yeah but that's kind of my point... in this instance, art and stock may as well be the same thing... unless you're famous. Same reason why Damien Hirst and David Hockney don't sell prints on SS, and the majority of us here don't sell artwork in galleries that sell for tens of thousands of dollars.
From what I can see, the more famous you are, the more money you'll make, but at that point you're already making plenty of money... so it's not like this is going to revolutionise anything. The whole talking point is that every day artists can make a living from their work, but do you know any 'every day artists' who are making a living from NFTs? Non-famous ones who don't have tens or hundreds of thousands of followers on IG?
As for the email analogy, emails make perfect sense... people probably had varying opinions on whether they would be adopted or not, but I think everyone could get behind the overall concept. NFTs don't make perfect sense. And it's not because people don't understand them... I think the more you understand them, the more people realise how ridiculous it all is. Not the concept of an NFT, that's fine... the whole blockchain concept has its merits, but people paying so much for essentially nothing other than an entry in the blockchain... it's hard for any rational person to justify it all.
-
As for the email analogy, emails make perfect sense... people probably had varying opinions on whether they would be adopted or not, but I think everyone could get behind the overall concept. NFTs don't make perfect sense. And it's not because people don't understand them... I think the more you understand them, the more people realise how ridiculous it all is. Not the concept of an NFT, that's fine... the whole blockchain concept has its merits, but people paying so much for essentially nothing other than an entry in the blockchain... it's hard for any rational person to justify it all.
Yeah, I take your point. I use the term NFT interchangeably with blockchain (which I realise can be confusing). My larger point is, eventually, we'll be selling all our digital assets (which can be images, videos, whatever) on some form of a block chain because it is a quicker, more efficient technology for transactions and will most certainly be adopted in the future. Might as well get to know what it's all about instead of rejecting it outright like how some people are doing.
-
Oh I know what it's all about! I probably know more than the average crypto/blockchain enthusiast who just spout buzzwords, and want to 'stick it to the man', but don't actually know how it really works. Blockchain is here to stay, and rightly so. The get rich quick schemes won't last forever. And yes, fiat money doesn't have any intrinsic value... so congratulations, you've created a new system that doesn't have any intrinsic value either. Hoorah! (that's more to them than you, just so you know!)
-
Nah. There’s no need for it. No benefit. Just an over complication.
That's what they said when "emails" started becoming a thing back when. Everything digital is going to be on some form of a block chain in a few years. It's inevitable, whether we like it or not. And like with any new technology, the people who benefit the most are early adopters.
Lol, no. Nobody has shown any benefit.
-
In the very near future stock agencies will accept crypto payments. After that they will send files to customers in form of a blockchain. It will come gradually. Shortsighted and uneducated photographers that don't see it coming will have to do nothing anyways, just to follow instructions about new upload process from agencies. Agencies will be forced to do that.
-
They'll only be forced to do it if another major stock agency does it and they increase revenue as a result. Too many cons and not enough pros for them at the moment, so I can't see it being as 'very near future' as you might think.
-
Has anyone actually sold any images as NFTs?
-
Has anyone actually sold any images as NFTs?
I know someone who has but they're not a stock photographer. They've sold a few via Cardano and got paid in ADA (around 200ADA/shot). I assume that they can convert those ADAs into real money. They are an iPhone shooter which is they're claim to 'fame'.
My thoughts on the NFT bizz is that some financial market whizz kids thought about how they could make some moolah selling fantasy digits to the 'there's always a greater fool somewhere in the future I can flog this crap to for more than I paid for it' crowd. They are probably right but I would never be a buyer as that is the only purpose of NFTs (greater fool theory).
As a buyer, you don't even get to hang a nice print on your wall unless you pay for a print to be made (or maybe that's not allowed either as you don't own the copyright!). I have no idea about what 'rights' the purchaser of an NFT has but, hell, if you are an artist and can make loads of dosh with it, why not? Maybe the buyers of today are the greater fools but become the genius investors of the future!
Whatever. It's not about beautiful photos or art...it's just about money and profit/loss and that someone in the financial world is making their commission which is all that matters in the banking/finance world!
-
Whatever. It's not about beautiful photos or art...it's just about money and profit/loss and that someone in the financial world is making their commission which is all that matters in the banking/finance world!
[/quote]
It's hard to understand but from what I've read anyone can mint anything, photo or video as an NFT even if they don't own the copyright, it's the wild west right now like most things crypto, crypto itself can do up or down in value in seconds compared to real money.
It you are using ETH to pay to upload you have to pay what they call gas fees which are very high as the ETH network can only hand 15 transactions per second, I guess Cardano is supposed to be better.
I was also reading that the actual jpegs or video files are stored on random places like Google drive, various other servers and people's computers so you are buying an entry on the blockchain, kinda like buying a line in a windows registry but the program resides on a normal drive or cloud server.
Good money has been made by some you gotta be a master of social media and know how to work it to promote it, There is money to be made tho, this guy did it as a joke for a video and..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dYc966_o4I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dYc966_o4I) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l-ba69P_Sc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l-ba69P_Sc)
-
I still don't quite get it as it doesn't stop piracy, doesn't stop anyone from minting a stolen NFT jpeg and it involves using crpyto which is a huge learning curve in itself plus the value of the digital money can rise or drop in seconds.
And there is no central authority governing this wild west known as the blockchain at least not yet, interesting article on it though and money is being made...... https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/10/15/nfts-are-an-internet-game-changer/ (https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/10/15/nfts-are-an-internet-game-changer/)