Didn't follow your link but did happen upon an article in the Verge on the same subject

https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq

Not really sure how it relates to stock licensing, but possibly this might be interesting for people looking for a side hustle to boost income if stock royalties are down from years past. As always, the real trick is finding buyers; second consideration, avoiding all the administrative & financial hassle so one can spend more time making things to license.

I signed up earlier today. I heard they are very selective. They only seem to accept artists with a strong presence in social media... and I don't have a strong presence in social media. We'll see what happens.

This is a general trend last years. Not the main subject is the main criteria, but what is around. In the world out of the artists environment a social profile (not social media presence of course, but everything what 'cannot' be updated by a person) is more important than skills.

@Jo Ann, that's what I was wondering, if it might somehow be more profitable than stock. The way you explain it, though, it would be hard to get there, as the artist is now handling all the admin work which takes time away from making art. Seth Godin basically agrees in his blog, calling it a dangerous trap:

https://seths.blog/2021/03/nfts-are-a-dangerous-trap/

@melastmohican, Yes, those fees would further cut into how profitable this could be for your average artist. And then there are the "gas prices", the extra fees buyers have to pay. I can only see it being non-prohibitive for really high value art, artists, and collectors. In other words, a rich person's game. But you never know.

For what it's worth there are environmental arguments against it:
https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3

But now Artstation, a major showcase platform for artists has announced they are getting in the game:
https://amp.artstation.com/magazine/36801?__twitter_impression=true

They are taking the carbon offsetting route. One thing they mentioned that was interesting was how NFTs are supposed to continue earning the artist a profit whenever they are resold and change hands, but that breaks down when the NFT is sold on a different market than the original transaction. So they will be "incentivizing" resale on their platform so artists can continue making money.

Seems rather like there are a lot of loose ends to be worked out overall, if it is to be more than a flash in the pan. And I'm not so sure much of the buzz is because people see "crypto" and "blockchain" and don't want miss out on another bitcoin.

But it's certainly fascinating to watch where it goes.

Wow, I just learnt about this NFT thing today. It is really exciting, but then there's a lot of questions about it.

I understand that we still own the copyright of our work even after we sell the NFT, but can we continue to sell the vector/photo in marketplace like Adobe Stock, Dreamstime, and etc...?

Continuing to sell your images on stock sites will reduce the value of the NFT to virtually zero.

Except it wouldn't.  As I understand it, it doesn't matter how many "copies" are out there, the "original" still holds its value.

Of course, it all sounds like nonsense to me, but that's what I glean from what I've read.

Quote from: Copidosoma on March 11, 2021, 11:25

Continuing to sell your images on stock sites will reduce the value of the NFT to virtually zero.

Except it wouldn't.  As I understand it, it doesn't matter how many "copies" are out there, the "original" still holds its value.

Of course, it all sounds like nonsense to me, but that's what I glean from what I've read.

The "original" holds its value but if you are trying to sell an exclusive item for $XXXX.XX nobody is likely to pay that if they can download it for $0.XX

Having a small number of copies around would be fine. Sort of like limited edition art prints or something. But trying to sell things in a similar fashion to microstock (generic images with many similar available ones being sold at extremely low prices) is not really a model that would fit with NFTs as far as I know.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 11, 2021, 12:04

Quote from: Copidosoma on March 11, 2021, 11:25

Continuing to sell your images on stock sites will reduce the value of the NFT to virtually zero.

Except it wouldn't.  As I understand it, it doesn't matter how many "copies" are out there, the "original" still holds its value.

Of course, it all sounds like nonsense to me, but that's what I glean from what I've read.

The "original" holds its value but if you are trying to sell an exclusive item for $XXXX.XX nobody is likely to pay that if they can download it for $0.XX

Having a small number of copies around would be fine. Sort of like limited edition art prints or something. But trying to sell things in a similar fashion to microstock (generic images with many similar available ones being sold at extremely low prices) is not really a model that would fit with NFTs as far as I know.

But oddly a number of things that have been sold are available free on You Tube. See Logan Paul. It seems to be all about the idea that you "own" something. You can buy a massive range of merchandising of the worlds most famous art works like the monet fridge magnet on my noticeboard and it doesn't detract from the value of the original..if anything it increases it.

"The same guys who've always been at it, trying to come up with a new form of worthless magic bean that they can sell for money."