Topic: NFT and art theft - page 3. (Read 508 times)
Before people disregard the existence of the NFT because of course why people buy just a simple art with tons of money and now currently just snipping their art you can now sell and steal others art I guess still it requires the creator signature in every art for its originally or there's an authentication platform to verify if the art is legit and really came from the author and bought in a legal process.
I don't understand why it seems NFT is now being equated with art or digital art. Of course, the history of NFT is a little bit older but when it became a thing lately, it was more associated with blockchain gaming which features NFTs. So, a criticism on NFTs venturing into art or digital art is not a criticism on NFT itself.
Anyway, I also am not a fan of NFT artworks. I think it is even a backward step in the realm of arts. It cheapens art. I could even probably say art became a thing even to the unskilled. There must be a set of criteria for someone to be called an artist. Moreover, it does not actually boost the sense of ownership when it comes to artworks. And it is also a big deal to me that uniqueness in artworks is greatly diminished because NFTs owned by different people are all unique but could also mean 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 or more of them could represent the same artwork.
By the way, I feel sorry for Deviant Art. NFT hosting sites should have at least provided a stringent mechanism on verifying originality or authenticity.
Anyway, I also am not a fan of NFT artworks. I think it is even a backward step in the realm of arts. It cheapens art. I could even probably say art became a thing even to the unskilled. There must be a set of criteria for someone to be called an artist. Moreover, it does not actually boost the sense of ownership when it comes to artworks. And it is also a big deal to me that uniqueness in artworks is greatly diminished because NFTs owned by different people are all unique but could also mean 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 or more of them could represent the same artwork.
By the way, I feel sorry for Deviant Art. NFT hosting sites should have at least provided a stringent mechanism on verifying originality or authenticity.
I was wary of NFTs in the first place because I think they're way overrated and a bit ridiculous, but I thought they were indeed a useful tool for creators to get support by making their own art into NFTs. Somehow, I didn't think about the possibility of others stealing creator's art and selling NFTs... It's a very good case against this whole technology because it shows that not only it fails to protect copyright, it actually helps make money on one's art in a completely new way, and even suggests that someone else owns something.
if art piracy can easily claim and publish into their own NFT and sell it in marketplace, the NFT platforms should work together to ensure that the published work is truly original and can be verified by the artist. what is currently happening is that the NFT platform does not care about the originality of the content being sold, so that duplicate or pirated works are still common. This must be fix immediately so that the originality of NFT in the future can be trusted.
They do. If you steal someone's art work and make it into NFT and you get reported then the NFT you created will be nulled and will not be able to move. That is a thing in many blockchains and in many places, there are many methods of showing proof of ownership as well so you can't even steal in some of them as well because they will ask you to provide a proof that you own that art yourself.There are some loopholes that some scammers will take advantage of and I am sure that eventually all of them will be covered, but we are living in a world where torrenting a movie is available and pirating never stopped no matter how harsh the penalty became. Which means that, yes there will be some ways to stop it, but in the long run scammers will keep on finding more methods to gain some profit from others art work and it will not be stopped fully.
Alright, so here's my question to you: If we have an idea and this idea isn't properly implemented, should we abandon it? Or should we change our point of view against it?
It's pretty obvious that NFTs have failed on working exactly as envisioned, unless they weren't envisioned as I do in the first place. I don't know what those folks in the central of Ethereum™ were thinking of, but I'm personally in favor of transmitting rights without a notary. It's a cool idea, you know. To come into an agreement in a peer-to-peer way, without intermediaries.
Yeah, I'm against centralizing the way they're purchased, but hey, we even have decentralized exchanges. Transacting NFTs without a third party may not take long to come.
It's pretty obvious that NFTs have failed on working exactly as envisioned, unless they weren't envisioned as I do in the first place. I don't know what those folks in the central of Ethereum™ were thinking of, but I'm personally in favor of transmitting rights without a notary. It's a cool idea, you know. To come into an agreement in a peer-to-peer way, without intermediaries.
Yeah, I'm against centralizing the way they're purchased, but hey, we even have decentralized exchanges. Transacting NFTs without a third party may not take long to come.
if art piracy can easily claim and publish into their own NFT and sell it in marketplace, the NFT platforms should work together to ensure that the published work is truly original and can be verified by the artist. what is currently happening is that the NFT platform does not care about the originality of the content being sold, so that duplicate or pirated works are still common. This must be fix immediately so that the originality of NFT in the future can be trusted.
If the whole concept of NFT depends on centralized platforms, then it means that NFT is centralized and useless. You can do whatever you want with your token, but when a third party controls what that token represents, it's no different from any traditional centralized database. Except these third parties seem to be really lazy about what they are supposed to do.
The first wave of NFT was pretty awesome and a lot of people have made a lot of money out of them but this current state of NFT is deplorable and it seems that they've totally deviated away from the point of having an NFT which is the community in it. This theft is just sad and at the same time makes me furious, I hate people who steal the works of other people and present it with the audacity that it's their own work, hopefully these theft is covered by laws.
If you visit the link and read the whole story you would understand why the artist had to shutdown his online art gallery. I just don't know yet if this whole stealing of online art is covered by law since the author or artist seems to lose his patient waiting for the admin to make a move to all of his report yet they don't seem to care at all.If I am the artist I would do the same since you can't make money when all of your work is being stolen and yet they are the ones who benefited from it. It's frustrating if that happens to you.
NFTs were said to help support the artists, but here we see how they did the opposite and forced an artist to close their gallery and reducing their chances of selling their art or getting commissions. The artists who are profiting from NFTs the most are the big names like Grimes who are already rich.
That’s the problem, anyone can just copy and paste anything and sell it to investors on NFT platforms, while the main artist that created the work would stand gaining nothing at all, which is very bad. And there is nothing you can do about it, since the platforms wouldn’t agree to taking it down.Some people have said that the only way that the artist can avoid this kind of thing from happen is by creating the art as an NFT themselves and putting them on NFT platforms, but how exactly would that solve the problem? And by the way not everyone is interested in cryptocurrency or NFT, so that’s not helping at all.
This is apparently occurring, at the highest levels.
Even Quentin Tarantino is selling NFTs containing content he doesn't have the rights to.
I still think NFTs aren't so different from collectibles, art, memorabilia, antique markets. The only difference is, there is a lot of silicon valley dot com hype behind NFTs wheras other collectibles and art have long since hit a saturation point.
Quote
Miramax sues Quentin Tarantino over Pulp Fiction NFTs
Production company Miramax has sued director Quentin Tarantino over his non-fungible token or NFT collection based on Pulp Fiction. The lawsuit, filed yesterday in California court and noted online by attorney Mark Jaffe, says NFTs don’t fall under Tarantino’s reserved rights for the film. Miramax accuses him of violating the company’s copyright and trademark, and it’s demanding a halt to the upcoming sale.
Tarantino’s NFT collection is supposed to include blockchain tokens associated with high-resolution scans from his original handwritten screenplay of Pulp Fiction, plus a drawing inspired by some element of the scene. But Miramax alleges that Tarantino’s limited contractual rights for Pulp Fiction — including interactive games, live performances, and other ancillary media — don’t cover NFTs linked with the film’s screenplay.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787216/miramax-pulp-fiction-quentin-tarantino-nft-lawsuit
Production company Miramax has sued director Quentin Tarantino over his non-fungible token or NFT collection based on Pulp Fiction. The lawsuit, filed yesterday in California court and noted online by attorney Mark Jaffe, says NFTs don’t fall under Tarantino’s reserved rights for the film. Miramax accuses him of violating the company’s copyright and trademark, and it’s demanding a halt to the upcoming sale.
Tarantino’s NFT collection is supposed to include blockchain tokens associated with high-resolution scans from his original handwritten screenplay of Pulp Fiction, plus a drawing inspired by some element of the scene. But Miramax alleges that Tarantino’s limited contractual rights for Pulp Fiction — including interactive games, live performances, and other ancillary media — don’t cover NFTs linked with the film’s screenplay.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787216/miramax-pulp-fiction-quentin-tarantino-nft-lawsuit
Even Quentin Tarantino is selling NFTs containing content he doesn't have the rights to.
I still think NFTs aren't so different from collectibles, art, memorabilia, antique markets. The only difference is, there is a lot of silicon valley dot com hype behind NFTs wheras other collectibles and art have long since hit a saturation point.
What would happen to the buyer of that NFT, and what could Miramax do to the buyer? Who is most probably be anonymous. I believe the market for that NFT will crash. No one would like to HODL a Tulip with a legal action waiting.Hahaha.
The first wave of NFT was pretty awesome and a lot of people have made a lot of money out of them but this current state of NFT is deplorable and it seems that they've totally deviated away from the point of having an NFT which is the community in it. This theft is just sad and at the same time makes me furious, I hate people who steal the works of other people and present it with the audacity that it's their own work, hopefully these theft is covered by laws.
there is a solution very easy. to avoid art to be stolen in that way, the author should create his own NFT 
and not wait other people to stole a work.
and not wait other people to stole a work.Most of the art that are stolen in this way ...are people's creations or Art that existed before NFT's even existed. These artists might not even know about NFT's and by the time they do find out... it might be too late.
Yes... struggling artists with a little knowledge about NFT's are cashing in now.. because it has given them a voice now. It is not just the gallery owners that are making money now..
The dilemma is that a lot of artists are not yet well-versed with NFT industry. I guess, most old artists or unknown artists don't know how to turn their artworks to NFTs. So it will take time for them to understand this new hype in the art industry. So if you are a buyer, you need to be vigilant with stolen works. Before you buy an expensive NFT item, make sure you are getting the authentic piece. Because once it is proven your possession is stolen or just imitation, your investment is gone.
there is a solution very easy. to avoid art to be stolen in that way, the author should create his own NFT and not wait other people to stole a work.
and not wait other people to stole a work.Most of the art that are stolen in this way ...are people's creations or Art that existed before NFT's even existed. These artists might not even know about NFT's and by the time they do find out... it might be too late.
Yes... struggling artists with a little knowledge about NFT's are cashing in now.. because it has given them a voice now. It is not just the gallery owners that are making money now..
Today I found an interesting post on /r/Cryptocurrency about an artist who had to shut down his online gallery, because people keep stealing his works and turning them into NFTs - here's the original post.
NFT technology is legitimately useless, all it does is creating a unique token on blockchain that has zero meaningful connection with the thing it's supposed to represent. When you NFT is an url that points to a centralized site, it's really no different than buying a star or moon land from some scam company.
The artist said that NFT hosting sites refused to cooperate and remove the stolen art, but even if they were doing their job, it would still mean that the whole system is centralized and pointless. Deluded NFT fans like to say that NFT gives people the ability to "truly" own something, but in reality NFT owners own absolutely nothing and are at mercy of NFT hosting sites.
NFTs were said to help support the artists, but here we see how they did the opposite and forced an artist to close their gallery and reducing their chances of selling their art or getting commissions. The artists who are profiting from NFTs the most are the big names like Grimes who are already rich.
This is good news, I personally also highlight this. NFT is not only a good opportunity for artists but also a good opportunity for fraudsters, some reports that I have heard are not a few NFT artists their work is stolen and sold by fraudsters and plagiarists in the NFT market. imo that's a good decision the artist made by closing the gallery so that intellectual theft of his work doesn't happen again. NFT technology is legitimately useless, all it does is creating a unique token on blockchain that has zero meaningful connection with the thing it's supposed to represent. When you NFT is an url that points to a centralized site, it's really no different than buying a star or moon land from some scam company.
The artist said that NFT hosting sites refused to cooperate and remove the stolen art, but even if they were doing their job, it would still mean that the whole system is centralized and pointless. Deluded NFT fans like to say that NFT gives people the ability to "truly" own something, but in reality NFT owners own absolutely nothing and are at mercy of NFT hosting sites.
NFTs were said to help support the artists, but here we see how they did the opposite and forced an artist to close their gallery and reducing their chances of selling their art or getting commissions. The artists who are profiting from NFTs the most are the big names like Grimes who are already rich.
NFT world does have a "stolen art" branch where you could notify and get your art back to you and that NFT gets nullified, whoever ends up paying for it will be screwed in that sense but that doesn't mean that we will have to let it be, anyone who buys any NFT needs to do their research before they get into it.
Anything online could become NFT and we would have to be checking each and every one of them, there is no scenario where we can't wait a minute and see if it is real or not, we could always end up with checking and if you are rushing to get it as soon as it is available and end up buying a stolen work that gets nullified even though you paid for it, the buyer will be the one who gets screwed and seller will not get the amount reverted back if he managed to withdraw it already, and artist will be able to get his art back, so this is all already in place.
Anything online could become NFT and we would have to be checking each and every one of them, there is no scenario where we can't wait a minute and see if it is real or not, we could always end up with checking and if you are rushing to get it as soon as it is available and end up buying a stolen work that gets nullified even though you paid for it, the buyer will be the one who gets screwed and seller will not get the amount reverted back if he managed to withdraw it already, and artist will be able to get his art back, so this is all already in place.
Talking about the theft of works of art, which is now quite common. Where there are a lot of silly pictures as NFT which is a pretty big price. I don't know what collectors are chasing with rock pictures, cartoons etc. In fact, if you think about it with a large amount to buy the image, it's better to buy it for a clearer asset like Bitcoin. This is just ridiculous being exaggerated by a community that charges exorbitant prices.
Shusssh you all crazy Bitcoiners....Shusssh!!
Let me just first sell-off some of my "art" in the form of NFTs and auction it off to the biggest fool...Stop exposing the plan to everybody..
LOL. I totally agree that this NFT business enables complete nut-cases. The pump and dump here is way more easier than even the ICOs. You just launch your project, do a fake whitelist, then do a public mint. And on the day of mint, buy some of your own JPEG's on Opensea from some other accounts. The people who haven't gotten into the "whitelist" start FOMOing and then you take the money on re-sales, on re-selling from your Alt-accounts and your brothers accounts.
It totally works.
Despite this, Just like alt-chains, it is a lot about community than just these pump and dumps. There are indeed some NFT projects where people are putting in money and ETH, simply because they believe in the concept or want to be part of the community. Like checkout this group called as @nounsdao. They sell 1 NFT for upwards of a 100 ETH every day. and they are still going strong and using that treasury to fund more projects and artists.
So frankly, its not all bad. There is of course a lot of scammy shit but its up to the individual to discern.
Let me just first sell-off some of my "art" in the form of NFTs and auction it off to the biggest fool...Stop exposing the plan to everybody..
LOL. I totally agree that this NFT business enables complete nut-cases. The pump and dump here is way more easier than even the ICOs. You just launch your project, do a fake whitelist, then do a public mint. And on the day of mint, buy some of your own JPEG's on Opensea from some other accounts. The people who haven't gotten into the "whitelist" start FOMOing and then you take the money on re-sales, on re-selling from your Alt-accounts and your brothers accounts.
It totally works.
Despite this, Just like alt-chains, it is a lot about community than just these pump and dumps. There are indeed some NFT projects where people are putting in money and ETH, simply because they believe in the concept or want to be part of the community. Like checkout this group called as @nounsdao. They sell 1 NFT for upwards of a 100 ETH every day. and they are still going strong and using that treasury to fund more projects and artists.
So frankly, its not all bad. There is of course a lot of scammy shit but its up to the individual to discern.
I still think NFTs aren't so different from collectibles, art, memorabilia, antique markets. The only difference is, there is a lot of silicon valley dot com hype behind NFTs wheras other collectibles and art have long since hit a saturation point.
They are different, because all those collectibles are what they are, but NFTs are supposed to only represent a right to something, but the problem is, there's absolutely no way to enforce that right without centralization. NFT pictures are hosted on centralized websites, in-game items with NFTs are stored in game server databases, and so on.
NFT is hyped as "truly owning digital assets" and being decentralized because of blockchain, but the reality is that they are all so heavily centralized that it makes them pointless.
See the thing is, these things have been happening since time immemorial, people take advantage and you can't decide who is the owner, at last we have a tool that can help us label the owner and give him his rights, he would own his own art.
And that's probably why the entire thing turned into a big joke. NFT's were something that was supposed to let artists have ownership over their artworks, but in the end, it still allows for plagiarism to be a thing, and as you said, others could still add a small change towards artworks and call it their own. If that's allowed and considered as 'original artwork', then wouldn't the value of the original artists' work drop? Honestly, the NFT market is just being run by hype right now imo. 
This is apparently occurring, at the highest levels.
Even Quentin Tarantino is selling NFTs containing content he doesn't have the rights to.
I still think NFTs aren't so different from collectibles, art, memorabilia, antique markets. The only difference is, there is a lot of silicon valley dot com hype behind NFTs wheras other collectibles and art have long since hit a saturation point.
Quote
Miramax sues Quentin Tarantino over Pulp Fiction NFTs
Production company Miramax has sued director Quentin Tarantino over his non-fungible token or NFT collection based on Pulp Fiction. The lawsuit, filed yesterday in California court and noted online by attorney Mark Jaffe, says NFTs don’t fall under Tarantino’s reserved rights for the film. Miramax accuses him of violating the company’s copyright and trademark, and it’s demanding a halt to the upcoming sale.
Tarantino’s NFT collection is supposed to include blockchain tokens associated with high-resolution scans from his original handwritten screenplay of Pulp Fiction, plus a drawing inspired by some element of the scene. But Miramax alleges that Tarantino’s limited contractual rights for Pulp Fiction — including interactive games, live performances, and other ancillary media — don’t cover NFTs linked with the film’s screenplay.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787216/miramax-pulp-fiction-quentin-tarantino-nft-lawsuit
Production company Miramax has sued director Quentin Tarantino over his non-fungible token or NFT collection based on Pulp Fiction. The lawsuit, filed yesterday in California court and noted online by attorney Mark Jaffe, says NFTs don’t fall under Tarantino’s reserved rights for the film. Miramax accuses him of violating the company’s copyright and trademark, and it’s demanding a halt to the upcoming sale.
Tarantino’s NFT collection is supposed to include blockchain tokens associated with high-resolution scans from his original handwritten screenplay of Pulp Fiction, plus a drawing inspired by some element of the scene. But Miramax alleges that Tarantino’s limited contractual rights for Pulp Fiction — including interactive games, live performances, and other ancillary media — don’t cover NFTs linked with the film’s screenplay.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787216/miramax-pulp-fiction-quentin-tarantino-nft-lawsuit
Even Quentin Tarantino is selling NFTs containing content he doesn't have the rights to.
I still think NFTs aren't so different from collectibles, art, memorabilia, antique markets. The only difference is, there is a lot of silicon valley dot com hype behind NFTs wheras other collectibles and art have long since hit a saturation point.
Today I found an interesting post on /r/Cryptocurrency about an artist who had to shut down his online gallery, because people keep stealing his works and turning them into NFTs - here's the original post.
NFT technology is legitimately useless, all it does is creating a unique token on blockchain that has zero meaningful connection with the thing it's supposed to represent. When you NFT is an url that points to a centralized site, it's really no different than buying a star or moon land from some scam company.
The artist said that NFT hosting sites refused to cooperate and remove the stolen art, but even if they were doing their job, it would still mean that the whole system is centralized and pointless. Deluded NFT fans like to say that NFT gives people the ability to "truly" own something, but in reality NFT owners own absolutely nothing and are at mercy of NFT hosting sites.
NFTs were said to help support the artists, but here we see how they did the opposite and forced an artist to close their gallery and reducing their chances of selling their art or getting commissions. The artists who are profiting from NFTs the most are the big names like Grimes who are already rich.
NFT technology is legitimately useless, all it does is creating a unique token on blockchain that has zero meaningful connection with the thing it's supposed to represent. When you NFT is an url that points to a centralized site, it's really no different than buying a star or moon land from some scam company.
The artist said that NFT hosting sites refused to cooperate and remove the stolen art, but even if they were doing their job, it would still mean that the whole system is centralized and pointless. Deluded NFT fans like to say that NFT gives people the ability to "truly" own something, but in reality NFT owners own absolutely nothing and are at mercy of NFT hosting sites.
NFTs were said to help support the artists, but here we see how they did the opposite and forced an artist to close their gallery and reducing their chances of selling their art or getting commissions. The artists who are profiting from NFTs the most are the big names like Grimes who are already rich.
I completely agree with you. The point of NFTs was to enable artists to sell their valuable art in a digitized format.
NFT was meant to be used as a token through which users can prove the ownership of an asset.
While all these goals are still being achieved the use of NFT has completely driven people to a money making long term scam.
Why I say it as a scam is because there's no point of holding these arts which has no meaning.
Literally hundreds of NFT projects keep launching everyday (all blockchains combines) and its just like the ICO hype according to me.
Many projects keep launching and will settle for dust in a year or two.
I might be going a little off topic but the point is that people are using NFT wrongly and they are just gonna lose money in the long term.
Jump to: