[hk-im-ad]

Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci made one but we could make exact molecular replicas now? I would still say it would be valuable. You can make nearly indistinguishable copies off the Mona Lisa now, but they aren’t worth anything. The pictorial content of the Mona Lisa is only a small part of its value.

[scyzoryk_xyz]

What’s also usually difficult to keep in mind today is that before photography you had to physically go to visit a painting itself to see it. The Mona Lisa became famous partially also because once the painting was stolen, most people couldn’t actually find out what it looked like.

This is something that we always miss with art - even on a digital screen you’re always only looking at a reproduction.

But it makes sense that, like with paintings, NFT’s could gain or lose value with the story of who it belongs to and when and how it was purchased. It makes perfect sense for celebrities to be purchasing these things.

[rubyn00bie]

You’re sort of missing my point. An artist creating a similar work is not equivalent.

If they were atomically identical copies, they would be literally the same. Any idea of “difference” would be completely false. That’s the difference here, these (NFTs) are by all means atomic copies. They aren’t close to the same, they ARE the same.

If we could make atomic copies of the Mona Lisa it would surely drop in value… scarcity is what causes works like the Mona Lisa to be valuable. With an NFT there is no scarcity because unlimited duplicates, each as real as the original, can be produced for nearly free.

[bryanlarsen]

Read this classic essay: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

The works are identical if bits don't have color (re linked essay above). We know they don't, but in the eyes of the law they definitely do, so an exact copy is still a copy in the eyes of the law.

[detaro]

The "original" Mona Lisa, that's not a copy, would still be valued over the copies, even if the copies were perfect.