Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Photoshop Will Get a 'Prepare as NFT' Option Soon (theverge.com) 30

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Adobe is launching a system built into Photoshop that can, among other things, help prove that the person selling an NFT is the person who made it. It's called Content Credentials, and NFT sellers will be able to link the Adobe ID with their crypto wallet, allowing compatible NFT marketplaces to show a sort of verified certificate proving the art's source is authentic. From a report: According to a Decoder interview with Adobe's chief product officer Scott Belsky, this functionality will be built into Photoshop with a "prepare as NFT" option, launching in preview by the end of this month. Belsky says attribution data created by the Content Credentials will live on an IPFS system. IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) is a decentralized way to host files where a network of people are responsible for keeping data safe and available, rather than a single company (somewhat similar to how torrent systems work). Adobe says that NFT marketplaces like OpenSea, Rarible, KnownOrigin, and SuperRare will be able to integrate with Content Credentials to show Adobe's attribution information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Photoshop Will Get a 'Prepare as NFT' Option Soon More

Photoshop Will Get a 'Prepare as NFT' Option Soon

Comments Filter:

  • Translation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by enriquevagu ( 1026480 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @04:10PM (#61929857)

    Adobe wants to get their piece of the pie before everything NFT blows, by making a feature that none of their customers really needs or wants.

    • If they can just figure out how to convince them that the only way to keep their content credentials is a forever subscription, they'll be giggling with glee!

      • NFT = Digital Rights Management (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @04:27PM (#61929909)

        Okay, now I get what all this NFT crap is about. It's about shoving Digital Rights Management junk down our throats all over again, but doing it under a different name so we don't realize what they're doing straight away.

    • Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @04:29PM (#61929915)
      No, it could be useful. I don't think selling silly meme files for crazy prices is the main point.

      Adobe is for 'creative professionals,' meaning, people who make money creating photos and videos. Not auctioning them for silly prices, but selling them to websites, stock photo libraries, magazines(!?), stuff like that. The chain of attribution / ownership is actually fundamantal to this. There are idiosyncratic methods like watermarking to do this with, but blockchain potentially could make sense for this.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • It isn't about establishing chains of ownership for copyright purposes.

          Does NFT not work for that for the simple reason that tweaking one bit changes the checksum? Or...?

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by jpapon ( 1877296 )
              Sure, but it seems trivial to attach copyright ownership to NFT ownership.

              Of course, this is solving a problem that doesn't really exist, but it does make it pretty easy to transfer and prove ownership of a copyright.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            What does NFT add? If there's a copyright holder, there is a de facto central authority. I'm responsible for policing the use of my copyrighted material.

            Adobe's play here is to put a bandaid on NFT's complete inability to prove "ownership" of anything but the NFT itself. I can sell NFTs for any of the meme's, or the Mona Lisa, no problem. Adobe is proposing to offer their customers a kind of digital watermark that they can link in the NFT proving that the person offering it for sale is the actual creator.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      More likely wants to be the software for the next Thomas Kincaide. Change a few spots, create a new NFT. He got $1000 on the paint his minimize wage slaves created. How much could someone make off the NFT.
    • Care to explain why none of Adobe's customers would mind if someone made nfts of their artwork and sold them? Because they're all perfectly selfless beings?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      This feature already exists. It's called Digimarc. Which costs $50/yr per year per photo. Basically nobody uses Digimarc because it's a grift.

      NFT's are an even bigger grift, but at least Adobe is making some mechanism for verification that otherwise doesn't exist. So in theory if "everyone" starts using photoshop just to make their artwork NFT's, when the NFT's go bust, Adobe will just roll out their own version of Digimarc that they control.

      Win-win for Adobe.

  • 1. Print Screen.
    2. Paste.
    3. "Prepare as NFT".

  • Slashdot! Your time is at hand! (Score:3)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @04:40PM (#61929939)

    Slashdot already has a killer moderation system that everyone loves to use.

    Well now is the time to make it even better! Slashdot can make a mint by adding one more moderation option "promote to NFT", where the first person to promote a post to NFT status gets a cut, as does Slashdot, with the bulk of the NFT value going to the original poster.

  • Does Adobe get a cut - given their software is used to create this?

  • Is it too much to ask for a definition of "NFT" in the summary?

  • GPG called (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arosenfield ( 998621 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @05:40PM (#61930093)

    Digital signatures have existed for decades. In theory, if consumers wanted to verify the source authenticity of digital art, the artists could always digitally sign the art and it'd be trivial to verify. In practice, GPG is nigh unusable and I've never heard of anybody actually caring enough to do that for art. Photoshop certainly has the capaibility to build that in as an easy-to-use feature if they wanted, but I seriously doubt there's any demand for it to warrant Adobe's developers' time.

    Then there's the issue of key management and identity management. With either GPG private keys or a cryptocurrency wallet's private keys, you still need something to manage those. With GPG, you need to be able to answer the question "Is the principal that owns the same as the identity of ?", vs. with this you need to be able to answer the question "Is the principal that owns the same as the identity of ?". Same problems either way.

    This seems more like a way for Adobe to try to capitalize on the hype of NFTs, by being able to sell more licenses to creators caught up in the NFT fad, rather than an earnest attempt to solve the problem of determining if a piece of art was authentically created by its purported artist.

  • Yet Another Reason (Score:3)

    by WhoBeDaPlaya ( 984958 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @06:40PM (#61930233) Homepage
    ... to stick with CS6
  • What's to keep unscrupulous types from "branding" stuff that is not theirs? There are already loads of people/businesses claiming rights over images that they do not have...
  • It's not real.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close