Topic: NFT and art theft - page 2. (Read 496 times)

The theft is also just a copy and for true collectors, a copy will have absolutely no artistic or collectible value and collectors would certainly prefer to relate more to the original version, a work that comes from the author's own hands, not the hands of a thief, I don't understand why there are artists who are not confident in the original version and worry that what they create will be copied on the NFT space. NFT is just a name created to enhance value and make money, compare to actual art paintings, it's two false stories, buyers on NFT are just investors while buyers on art value are collectors, need to distinguish

I always knew something like this would happen and there is right now no way to stop people from stealing from others and making it into an NFT and claim it as their own. This is sad. But I am sure eventually there will be some sort of validation check that will somehow be able to able to find out if the NFT has been made by the original owner or not.
At least deviant art is warning their users if people are stealing their artwork and selling it as their own. I wonder how many stolen NFTs are out there in the market.

That's on you but I think that if NFT people found another utility besides the community, I think that we would probably see something bigger plus the advent of virtual space for profit is starting to get more traction as time goes by and I am pretty sure that we are going to see more of them hoping to be the next big thing.

100% agreed.

I wouldn't call NFTs useless, although I do think that in its current form, it is no better than a speculative token.

I think that people hype the term up too much as well. The technology honestly isn't even that groundbreaking - everyone knows that having your own token on ETH was always possible, it's just that now there is an image attached to it.

When a technology is used for nothing more than investment scams, it just means that the technology itself is useless. Crypto in general is scammers paradise, because it can be hard to trace, it's impossible to fully regulate or stop. The only thing that can be done is governments telling exchanges to delist shitcoins and tokens, basically regulating them like the stock market, though scammers will just keep using various smart contract blockchains to sell their tokens.

It all won't stop with NFT, in a year or two there will be a new hyped trend with tokens/blockchain/smart contracts, and a lot of people will lose their money in the end.

It's because you have the rights to that piece of art, not only the piece of art itself. No one can prove they own it in the same chain unless the one who truly owns it.

Nope. Their point of existence is to reveal who owns (the rights of) the artwork. If the artists start selling their work on marketplaces, they're forced to reveal the jpg.

The thing is that it is not very easy to sell your arts, so I wonder how those people managed to sell stealing art-works. Actually, there must be an interesting story behind this NFT, a famous author etc, so I don't really think that people who steal these pictures, earn anything.
I don't see any value in NFTs as art, but I do believe that they will be widely used in the future as proof of entitlement.

What's the point of having an NFT art when it is available for other to steal.it, download and make a copy of it. I thought it was to protect the artist from others to steal their work. How come the people who should be be trusted are the people doing the wrong here. There should be laws to protect them from company's who take advantage and at least give them the freedom to choose of what to do with their work.

Honestly I didn’t like the comments of others like “NFTs need to stop” or “NFTs are a bunch load of crap” despite that we all have our own opinions regarding this incident. However in NFTs, I am not a fan when it comes to just simply arts. Either I would collect NFTs that are collectibles with issue numbers, play to earn NFTs, virtual land ownership, etc.

I think for the arts side, even if they put a little watermark claiming that it’s theirs, it’s not enough. Just my opinion.

If they sell it in x chains, they can sell the original x times. What you describe is what they're capable of doing in one chain.

From a googling:

It doesn't look like a ponzi scheme to me, but rather a greater fool example, as said by the Pharmacist. There are no profits guaranteed from previous “investors”.

I couldn't care less about the centralized/decentralized aspect of NFTs, because I think that's a trivial matter in their case.  The most important point about NFTs is exactly what you described--they're worthless, just as all digital art will be judged to be if it can be reproduced by anyone such that the only thing distinguishing the NFT and the copy is the fact that the NFT is on a blockchain.

I also have to say, when a new concept like NFTs comes out and the entire space turns into a scammer's paradise, that's not a good sign.  Those hucksters on Youtube who are hyping these things like crazy are probably being paid to do it, because I don't see how anyone in their right mind would think there's anything worthwhile about owning some ugly pixelated mess for the long term.  The NFT market has turned into a perfect example of the greater fool theory in action, on the internet, for everyone to witness.

Mark my words, it'll last a year and then interest will die off instantly.  Just like ICOs and just like DeFi.

So, NFT won't solve the problem you have right now of somebody selling his pictures on multiple image stock sites, or dealing behind your back with 100 other customers. So, what exactly do they solve? 


After scratching my head for a while I will just say that this just won't happen, if the property would be treated like tokens the ownership would still be recorded by the government as everything does now, so destroying your token won't matter unless you renounce it on an official chain and basically donate it to the state. As for the last part, that's why I've been telling people that you will not have decentralized blockchains and tokens for everything in this world and they will never replace some things, it's just impossible.


All those so-called NTF games where the only thing you do is breed JPGs will turn into Ponzi schemes as you breed more JPGs and those will only be valuable if somebody ads more money to the scheme.
It's one of the basic laws of the economy, imagine you produce 1000 tons of fruit instead of 100 tons if nobody wants to buy the extra 900 what will happen to the price?  Now, if the demand was 2000 tons you will make x10 the profit, but once you go over that again some of them won't sell. And since some would be desperate to recoup the money "invested" they will sell the resort to dumping, making the prices go down and collapsing the scheme.
There is only one outcome to this, and it will happen sooner or later.

That is not really exclusive of the NFTs, although you can actually insert a contract limiting the amount of digital goods that can be inserted, so that would be advantageous for the investors. It also happens with card games such as Magic the Gathering. You have black moxes, double lands and the like selling for a fortune that only depends on the will of the Intellectual Property owner of not producing more at any time. How can you be sure that they would not eventually create, even if by mistake a card that is just too good and eats up the value of others?

You do not really trust them exactly... I mean yeah they can sell you "one of a kind" thing but then create 10k more of the same thing a day later, but you are holding the "original" in that case. If it is just one thing that they minted, and then they go ahead and water it down by minting more, you are not really earning anything else here because technically the imagine is the same image but at the same time the NFT is a different one so you are not getting screwed here. Of course, it is distasteful and of course you need to have some smart people to see the difference but you still hold a rare one in that case anyway.

We had cryptokitties the same way, it was said to be rare and only a few gen 0 will be available so everyone attacked and bought for high prices years ago, now we all know how many new  stuff they keep on printing and devaluing it. So, it is not that easy for sure.

When a trend in crypto is still fresh, early investors are the ones who.always benefits from it, the profits are always massive to the point of making news headlines, that's why we Saw a massive rally in meme and NFTs but unfortunately the hype is no longer their again. New project that are coming to uplift NFTS using Facebook influence metaverse are bow mostly stuck and can't really raise much fund to start their companies.
Personally, till date, I'm not convinced about the ides if digital, I may lack the total knowledge but I feel NFTs is not necessary elemental in this space to grow.

All the current implementations of NFT are completely centralized, so in such event the central authority could intervene and mint a new NFT. This just highlights how useless the NFT technology is - it changes absolutely nothing, because you still need the same third party intermediaries, but it created hype about owning digital items, and now there's a market bubble that will soon burst.

You supposedly trust the author/artist that they won't reproduce their work. Don't you do the same thing in real life? It's just that in real life they're much more discouraged to make many copies.  

This has been answered: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/111054

I have an other question:  What happens if in the far future, tangible items are sold as NFTs, but the owner decides to burn them? The market has to imply with the government's laws, 'cause I don't see the opposite happening; you can't just sell a house unofficially. Even if you do, what happens if the owner of the house loses the private key?

A thing that did not happen in this case as a platform didn't give an f word about and more importantly, this "feature" shows that you don't actually own an NFT you own a promise of somebody lending you a line of code.
If a platform can cancel your rights, how can you exclusively own an NFT, it's fairly obvious they own it not you, and besides, what will happen if the same NFT is minted on different chains? I'm so curious what will happen if somebody mints two identical NFT on different chains and two different poeple buy it, so they've bought the rights for, what? It's a situation where those things have a lower value as mass-produced collectible cards, at least those have different numbers, these can be printed indefinitely.


Sorry but in NFT games what else do you own apart from a pixelated ape which becomes useless when the hype of the game is over since no more suckers toss money at it and nobody can make money out of selling pixelated apes?

Correct me but there are 2 kinds of NFT at least for me. NFT arts and NFT games.
Like others here, I'm also not a fan of NFT art. A mere pixelated monkey that is worth millions of dollars? A JPEG art that is being sold for thousands of dollars? I mean I don't get the idea why people are spending too much money for these pixelated pictures that doesn't have any value at least from what I see.

I don't know if its me only but stealing arts of others and registering it as an NFT is one that I already see that will happen. I mean you will just steal a picture online, register it into the blockchain and boom!! you already have an NFT. Put it into the Opensea and sell it with the price you want. Where is the effort there? Effort in stealing I guess.

Its very unfortunate that Deviant Art has been a victim of art theft and I think it is the correct decision to shut down it however, generalizing NFT as a whole is I think wrong because NFT art is just one kind of NFT and there is these NFT games still. This thing that is happening right now might create a domino effect against those artists out there and they might even put their artworks into private to prevent being stolen by these shitty thieves. Still, can somebody explain why in the hell are the investors are investing into some JPEG monkeys or pixelated pictures that for me doesn't have any value at all?

I did read the article although I just skimmed the important parts so I don't recall that much. I think that it's covered, at that time I never thought of it but it could be covered possibly with copyrighht or something about the ownership of the artwork online, so in a way the artist can probably escalate it to a cease and desist or take the whole profit of the stolen work.