an ancient bitcoin?

ok, so how do we get in on this?????can i take a picture, digitise it then sell it, say like pictures of my error coins???something seems fishy here...


update (13 min later...) i just signed up on a platform to create and sell my own "nft" rare and semi rare error coin images...i am serious, gona try this, 338 million was spent last year on this nonsense...lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Leaving the whole discussion whether your coin images are actuall art or not aside:

Why is art that exists only digital less worth collecting than something that exists physically? Everyone here has been enjoying digital art for decades (e.g. the music you listen to and the movies you watch).

NFT is just a somewhat new way of using the blockchain as some kind of none-corruptible art registry.

Owning a piece of digital art does not only mean that you are able to see or hear it (anyone is), but that you are actually allowed to use it (you own the copyright).

 

Economists distinguish between free or public goods (such as air, or the fire of a lighthouse) and economic goods (such as a car or a haircut). One characteristic that distinguishes free/public goods from economic goods is the question whether or not the owner can exclude others from consumption.

A lighthouse cannot exclude some ships from using its signalling light for guidance. Hence, a lighthouse produces a public good, that has no price. It is a free good that would not be produced unless the state decides to do so.

If nobody can be excluded from the consumption of digital art, such as music, movies or NFT, then they become public goods. They can have no price and hence are not procuced unless the state decides to do so, i.e. the state could decide to pay musicians and film makers, who then effectively become state employees.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with collecting NFT pictures of coins instead of coins, as long as an exclusive right of use and enjoyment can be enforced and as long as this right is regarded as important.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but that's exactly what intellectual property rights, such as copyright, is for, isn't it?

 

I agree that digital art should be able to be sold (even fractionally) as is physical art is but with NFTs, perhaps surprisingly, the copyright is not transferred, unless a separate arrangement is made.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/16/no-nfts-arent-copyrights/

Here's one example where some slight commercial rights are granted but this is not the default:

"Ownership of an NFT as a unique token – versus ownership of the content that such NFT may be associated with – is a critical distinction. When someone purchases an NFT tied to a piece of content, they have not automatically purchased the underlying intellectual property rights in such piece of content. Under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act, a copyright owner has certain exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, perform, display, and distribute the copyrighted work. As a general rule, the purchase of a piece of art does not transfer all copyright in such work to the buyer. For example, when someone buys a painting at an art gallery for their home, they are acquiring the physical painting itself, which they can display, but not the underlying rights to reproduce, make derivative works of, or distribute copies of such painting.

In reality, the underlying copyright only transfers if the copyright’s owner evidences in writing that they intend to transfer those rights alongside the copy of the work. Unless the NFT owner has received explicit permission from the seller, the NFT owner does not automatically acquire the legal right to take pictures of the creative work attached to the NFT and make T-shirts or postcards for sale. Absent further documentation, the purchaser of an NFT acquires through that purchase an implied non-exclusive license to display the related media in their token wallet for personal purposes only, but does not own the underlying copyright in the content the NFT is associated with or the right to display that media on third-party products, websites, or platforms.

The question of “What rights are you buying?” when someone buys an NFT tied to a creative work is something that the parties can, and ideally should, contract around. For example, Dapper Labs, operator of the popular NBA Top Shot platform, has promulgated a template NFT License that NFT sellers can adopt to outline what rights are being licensed to the NFT buyer. The NFT License distinguishes the actual NFT token from the “art” associated with the NFT (the underlying image, music, sound, or combination thereof). The license clarifies that the buyer of the NFT receives (i) a personal license to use and display the art associated with the NFT, as well as (ii) a commercial license to make merchandise that displays that art associated with the NFT, a license subject to a $100,000 gross revenue per year limit."

 

Definitely, regulations and laws have yet to be created in the crypto/blockchain world. It's basically a wild Eldorado right now.

But the NFTs that are sold for the high dollars at auctions like Christie's do most certainly have copyright agreements attached to them.

 

That's not necessarily true there either: the $70M "Beeple" NFT did not include the copyright. The buyer received a very high resolution image and bragging rights but does not own the copyright.

 

Now that's surprising, indeed. Well, at least he got the bragging rights

 

Copyright of photographs of three dimensional things (like ancient coins or mountains) is an interesting thing. Ansel Adams took many fine photographs in the Yosemite Valley and had perfect right to copyright those images. However, he did not own the mountain in the photo or have any rights to other photos of that same scene even if the second (or ten thousandth) photographer stood in the exact same spot when he snapped the photo. Photos of ancient coins belong to the photographer (or his employer who contracted the creation of the image) but do not transfer automatically to subsequent owners of the coin. Most dealers in coins have absolutely no problem with a buyer using their photo but that is a matter of contract or choice for them. Similarly, when CNG sells me a coin, whether or not they allow me to use their image, I am perfectly free to create a new photo of that same coin and have full ownership of that image not only while I own the coin but after I sell it. I am not a lawyer but I recall that the rules are a bit different for 2 dimensional objects (lawyers, check me on this).

Certainly, owning and having physical custody of an object has advantage over just having the photo since you remain in control of creating further images (among other benefits like holding the things in-hand). Would it be possible to collect only photos of coins (by taking them or being allowed to have them by their creator) but not to collect coins? Certainly. Many dealers and professionals in the field do not collect actual coins. Would that be a viable hobby for the rest of us? When the cultural property obcessed politicians who wish to make private ownership of anything against the law have their way, it may be the only hobby left to us.

Next question: Is there any such thing as a photograph more desirable than the thing itself?

 

Maybe I could conceive a nice reproduction ?

 

It's a very cool photo, one I wouldn't mind having. I'd just as soon not have the thing itself.

 

For that matter, there are a fair number of people who look great in a photo, but are rather poisonous in person.

 

Ancient coins are amulets which connect me, by some intangible magic, to long-gone aesthetic and mystical landscapes. In order to do that, they had to empirically exist in those landscapes, which is why modern reproductions (including images) are isufficient to the cause, but contemporary counterfeits are.

 

In the case of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp, federal court held that photographic reproductions of visual works in the public domain were not copyrightable because they lacked originality. Obviously, there can be no copyright claims at this point on an authentic ancient coin, so they fit the bill as public domain. One of the pieces of evidence used against Bridgeman was that the entire goal of their creation of the photographs of these paintings was reproducing the objects with absolute fidelity, as opposed to creating some sort of new original work, quite similar to the goals of most photos of coins. Assuming other courts would follow that same reasoning, I don't know how the average coin photo could be copyrightable but I am also not a lawyer.

 

BECAUSE THE PICTURES I CAPTURE AND VIDEOS AND MOVIES I STREAM ARE FREE!!!!!!!

 

and i just copied and pasted your photo, i NOW OWN IT, lol so if you had paid 300.00 for it, i got it for free as soon as it showed on my screen, that is why this is assinine..