Topic: NFT and art theft - page 4. (Read 496 times)

For this I totally agree, in fact it started since the first time NFT was launched. Thieves are targeting artists who are not aware that NFT has been duplicating works without the knowledge of the creators. This is an act that violates the prerogative of the individual, which means that every work owned has value and value. Without any respect, steal and publish on the website and then exchange it for large sums without any incentive to the artist. The multi-layered offense of stealing and misusing works of art. sometimes the abused nature of decentralization makes this a loophole.

Reproduction of any artwork is quite possible, there are people who can very easily just add a layer and copy the whole thing and sell it like it's theirs. I do think this very post proves us the essential requirement of having your own NFT for your artwork. 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. Making an NFT is easy as well, now few sites are offering the gas fee being paid after the seller buys it therefore with minimal technical knowledge you can actually get your own NFT in the market and get recognition.

I agree with you, NFT use cases have been overstretched. There is a very clear use case for NFT in digital assets that confer some abilities or benefits to holders. The clearest example could be in-game items. You can proof ownership, transfer trustlessly and apply the effects of the item in the game or games. Companies of the sector are already in the know, although some reticence may appear, as they will cut themselves from the middle-man profit.

NFT that confer ownership of a work of art kept on a vault are also all right, but on the end fractional or full ownership can be attained easily by the pre-existing legal instruments so the NFT offer just some transferability advantage and perhaps a legal caveat.

In so far as NFTs that do not confer ownership, they are, IMHO pointless.


There is something amazing that cannot be put into words about the original physical paintings. You have to feel it when you have the chance to be in front. That is probably why they become famous in the first place. My take is that a replica will loose a bit of the effect even if perfectly executed. I do not thing that can be said of the digital ones.

No, poeple are stealing his art which he was just exposing and selling all those thumbnails for money.
He is not selling 100pixel jpgs and Deviantart is not about making money something poeple here have become obsessed with.


And this whole episode proves how stupid the whole thing is because poeple are easily bypassing something that was supported to solve the copyright problem. In the end, nothing good came out of it, fake auction, stolen artworks, no way to actually protect your property nothing, just hype of somebody trading jpg pics and codes thinking it will get rich.

The fact that hundreds of art pieces that have entered the NFT world, since this is not a single case are simply stolen pictures of which not even the seller has rights to it shows what a fake industry this is.


Yeah, lol, suddenly everyone is starting to realize that NFT ae going to be plagued by the same problem they were supposed to fix.

i fear that many other talented artist around the world are victims of this as well, that is their art being stolen and used by others who have more opportunities and a means to sell them. I wonder if copyright laws are significant in the regards of NFT's, but i think an artist who has proper documents backing his "intellectual property" can sue someone who has not just stolen his work, but commercialised it as well.

I can't really understand why he would have to shut down his online gallery if people were stealing his art and turning them to NFTs? I am hard-pressed to think that people who would buy his art are instead buying NFTs? I sincerely doubt that is the case. I mean, I don't need NFT's to download someone's art and sell it as my own, but that wouldn't force the artist to shut down their business. That seems like half-told info or just false. I have no affiliation with NFTs and as an artist, I strongly disagree with the notion of art ownership and originality, but I wouldn't throw NFT's under the bus just because someone supposedly closed their business because of theft?

This is not a solution at all, it doesn't prevent thieves from making an NFT. They can do it and try to impersonate the original artist, they can pretend to be a different artist and pretend that it was their original work. They can even flip some pixels to fool the reverse image search algorithms. They can scan a physical artwork of some obscure artist and pretend that it's the original work. There's lots of ways to create fake digital art and get away with it if the buyer doesn't put enough effort into verifying it.



"Bitcoin is used by criminals" is a bad argument because a relatively small share of transactions belongs to criminals, and Bitcoin is not exactly a big crime enabler, because there are better tools, like privacycoins or cash. Though Bitcoin certaintly did contribute to the rise of ransomware, and it's still the most popular payment method for it. But overall Bitcoin is a net positive because its other properties offset the negatives.

I will argue that NFT is a net negative, because it's so full of scammers who pump their NFTs with fake trades and lure suckers into buying something that is insanely overpriced, it creates other negative situations like the one that I posted, and it has very little positive effects, because the technology itself solves absolutely nothing from technical point of view.

Small artists actually tend to lose money, as minting an NFT is very costly because of ETH gas fees, and they have low chance of making profit. NFT doesn't change the fact that few people are ready to pay for art that they can consume for free - buying prints, vinyl records, etc. Those who want to do it already do it just fine with traditional payment channels.


Bitcoin gains are a multiplier on the money that you have invested. So two people who invested different amounts in the same time have gotten the same ROI, which is fair. And they had pretty much the same opportunity for investment, as there is no barriers to enter Bitcoin market.

But with NFT small artists get nothing while celebrities instantly make millions. I'm not saying that inequality is evil and we should fight it, but this is a counter to the popular argument that NFT helps the artists. It does not, it generally only benefits those who don't need the help.

It’s really blockchain spam, but shitcoin blockchains can do what they want, and lose the war of “sustained friction”. If you know, you know.


They’re merely Tulips, anyone can right-click/save any digital image/NFT, convert them into a NFT of your own, sell in your marketpace.

Look, I'm not even going to defend NFTs because I totally get the criticisms, but if we're going to use this argument to conclude that NFTs are bad just because some art are getting stolen while ignoring the fact that some digital artists are making money in a difficult-to-gain-recognition industry, then we're just going back to the foolish "bitcoin is only being used by criminals" argument. Let's not use the arguments we hate.

People who made huge amounts of money on bitcoin are the ones that were also already rich. Doesn't make it a bad thing.

This might be the downfall of NFTs for the arts. But because of how easy it is to mint the art into the blockchain and make it as an NFT, these cons and thieves have found it easy to publish it and call it as an NFT. Too bad that the legit artists have to suffer because of these thieves that are taking advantage of their skills. It became pointless when somebody who just saw the art and haven't seen that it's not yet published as an NFT, whoever goes first becomes the owner of it.

The NFT is supposed to "prove" that the NFT owner is the one and only true owner of the piece of art.
He could prove his claims in court and he could demand for compensation when other people are using that piece of art without his permission.
However,without a good system to track and punish all the art stealers,the NFT system/marketplace is basically pointless.
Every NFT owner must have good lawyers in hand and he must be willing to go to court and sue all the stealers,who are copying and stealing his NFTs.
This costs a lot of time,efforts and money.That's why a lot of NFT owners won't bother to do anything against the people,who are copying the artwork from their NFTs.

I don't know.Perhaps buying an NFT is the digital equivalent of buying the real Mona Lisa,rather than buying a photo of Mona Lisa,which can be multiplied by 1 million copies and shared for free on the internet.
It's pretty difficult to measure the monetary value of art.

like GIOCONDA, anyone can create a new paint, even better with shocking-red lips.
but anyone should be interested in original version (created by the first author) not in other copies/reproductions etc.
maybe some copies will be interesting but the first one created by the author should be the point of reference.

it should be clear that anyone can create a NFT with anything he want.
did you will buy a NFT crated by a random artist / copy-paster or the original one created by first author?
If people doesn't understand the difference between original and copies ... it's just a time waste.

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.

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.