No one is buying NFTs expecting copyright ownership right now, that's just the nonsense people who are out of it think. There are NFTs that provide copyright with the purchase but that's optional. For now they are an alternative way to directly pay artists. An interesting idea that is gaining traction within the photographing community are people NFTing their photos and releasing them via CC when they are sold. If you buy the nft you get to fund the artist and this collectible has value afterwards.
Usually the more scummy ones you see are limited piece PFP collections with rarity traits etc. The OGs( cryptopunks) where interesting as the first NFTs to be ever made but the current churn is just hype. Besides that the more artistic generative collections like the art blocks curated are interesting. Most of the big pieces are in the collections of people that have no intention to ever sell them. Some are experimenting with online galleries of shorts.
Basically throughout the whole hype bubble with nonsensical projects( crypto is the definition of fuck around and find out) there are some who are exploring some cool artistic stuff. Personally I never understood high art so I'm staying out of it.
Also don't get caught up on the prices, these are priced in Eth, not $$. Eth was $80 a couple years ago and a few cents when it launched( and yes I do know people who have held eth since way back then). When something appreciates so fast it makes sense that some people are more willing to spend it in such ways.
1. A way to pay the artist directly for the work/effort being made (and against the counter-argument of "you could always buy a painting/physical artwork, its much better and would also be helping the artist" there is the: i don't need another "physical" artwork - my home is already littered as is; i just like to contribute and give money to people that are doing cool things and NFTs allow me to do that in a clear direct way)
2. NFTs bring a simple way to find and monetize/create value around previously hard to value/commoditize art domains like: interactive art, generative art and iterations - around authority sites like hic et nunc et al (now i can for the first time peruse common places that serve NFTs and fund/incentivize certain art styles that were previously out of the generalist/mainstream art market - previously how would you pay for a generative art and immediately have the creator reach you out for a conversation over its style and substance?)
3. An immutable receipt that i paid for it (which can be anonymous, but still it is good to have)
here is a bonus point that I personally don't find it as cool, but still worth a mention:
4. There is a whole after-market movement for these immutable receipts, look for it, people are cool, friendly and creating new amazing things with an incentive that is stronger than ever to produce new digital trendy objects (some you can even interact with, some might change whenever they get accessed, some might even freely stop existing at some point in time... its crazy ahah)
1. Patreon exists, this seems like a far safer way to support the creation of art (and a lot of artists already use it heavily).
2. The monetization of art is a heavily controversial topic and a lot of artists rightly think that patronage is a much better system to exist under since it provides a more reliable and stable income.
3. Paper is pretty immutable generally speaking. I don't think NFTs will actually significantly impact issues around long term art providence with both laundering and forgeries still remaining prominent. Additionally, almost all of the art world already supports publicly anonymous transactions to protect purchaser privacy.
4. I think there's some interesting stuff in this realm with interactive art - but I think there are ways to accomplish much the same thing with conventional sale processes.
1. Patreon is not direct, involves a 3rd party (patreon.com), requintes registration (besides a bank account/wallet address), and is centralized enough that they can ban you as a creator and as a giver.
2. With nfts the monetization of art is at least one step less controvertial than current approaches and does not exclude or goes against patronage (which is always a valid non-exclusive approach that can coexist with and along nfts)
3. Paper can be stolen, can be destroyed and is not public by default (it stays in your pants pocket while they go to laundry)
are these counter-arguments to the points I provided?
I fail to see the point here.
Are you speaking for the ones that like to support cool art or against them? are you speaking for the artists? or just generally against NFTs as an alternative tech innovation to a current existing problem?
Lots of NFT projects have gamification systems built around them; some include voting rights, others grant access to things, can be melded with other NFTs, provide FTs, so on. It's really the wild west right now and HN is completely out of touch.
https://variety.com/2021/biz/news/wme-signs-pixel-vault-1235... -- WME has signed Pixel Vault, an IP business dedicated to drive value to NFTs. The agency will grow Pixel Vault’s catalog of IP beyond its established NFT business into other areas including film, television, podcasting and gaming.
Here's two big name projects with all kinds of gamification going on around them: BAYC and CyberKongz
They're actually relatively simple. If you want to see some of the more complex NFT ecosystems that are really pushing boundaries, see Loot and NeoTokyo.
...and I'm being honest because I don't think any court in the world has ever acknowledged an NFT as proof of ownership in any dispute.