Messy NFT Drop Angers Infosec Pioneers With Unauthorized Portraits (theverge.com) 65
An unauthorized NFT drop celebrating infosec pioneers has collapsed into a mess of conflicting takedowns and piracy. From a report: Released on Christmas Day by a group called "ItsBlockchain," the "Cipher Punks" NFT package included portraits of 46 distinct figures, with ten copies of each token. Taken at their opening price, the full value of the drop was roughly $4,000. But almost immediately, the infosec community began to raise objections -- including some from the portrait subjects themselves. The portrait images misspelled several names -- including EFF speech activist Jillian York and OpenPGP creator Jon Callas -- and based at least one drawing on a copyright-protected photograph. More controversially, the list included some figures who have been ostracized for harmful personal behavior, including Jacob Appelbaum and Richard Stallman.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I would. But it's not illegal is it?
Re: (Score:3)
This. Photos taken in public in North America can be used without permission for editorial use and for art. It is only not allowed if it is for commercial purposes (unless a release has been signed); that is, for selling goods or services not related to the photo itself. But the photographer can sell copies of photos as art. And this is good, otherwise what is the good of photography? It will no longer be of use to document the world we live in. Photos without people (which would result if you had to get re
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I won't pretend to know all the laws here, but try and use a photo of the Three Stooges that was taken in public on some "art". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there may be a little more to it if you are in public and maybe famous. Not sure how famous the people in question are...
It's also legal to record a cover of any song, but if you hire a sound alike singer to make a cover that sounds too close to the original, you can get sued and lose some money. Just ask Ford about that, who ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law saying you need a signed release for commercial purposes. You could get sued if you don't have one, but nothing requires it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the problem? (Score:2)
Funny enough, we still have lots of photos in newspapers with people in them in Europe. But you can indeed no longer publish recognizable pictures of people without consent. I consider this a great win for the general public.
Re: (Score:1)
You wouldn't mind if someone took your name and likeness and started selling it?
Like peeing on an electric fence, they would find it to be a self-correcting behavior
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Laugh at them (and the idiots who paid $4000 for NFTs) and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a bet this is an NFT of goatse. To spare my retinas, I am not looking.
Stallman NFT work of art (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea if this is the same NFT the article is talking about, but I have to say this NFT of Stallman's face on an GNU [opensea.io] is pretty awesome.
Also the only people bothered by Stallman's behavior are the same petty tyrants bothered by all things.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a pretty cool picture.... which is why I a took a screenshot of it and saved myself about $270.
This is why NFT's don't really make sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
NFTs make perfect sense when you realize it's just a scheme to take advantage of idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
It's people making money off of other peope. Only commies would object to that!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, but I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.
Animation helps though (Score:1)
That is a pretty cool picture.... which is why I a took a screenshot of it and saved myself about $270.
Hey at least this one is animated, so the screenshot really isn't as valuable...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey at least this one is animated, so the screenshot really isn't as valuable...
The animation is annoying. My immediate reaction to clicking that link was "make it stop", so I'd say the screenshot is MORE valuable, or at least more pleasant. But if you really like the animation you could still just save the file.
Re: (Score:2)
You can right-click and download it. It's a standard GIF, so the animation will still be present.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong end of the gnu.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no idea if this is the same NFT the article is talking about, but I have to say this NFT of Stallman's face on an GNU [opensea.io] is pretty awesome.
Also the only people bothered by Stallman's behavior are the same petty tyrants bothered by all things.
Unfortunately, you don't have a voice. RMS will be forced to carry adjectives given to it by English graduates.
Your comment is not even visible to people who don't login, i.e. google bot.
Re: (Score:3)
Anybody that believes that bunk against RMS, especially after doing the least amount of researching, are complete idiots at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
You and I can agree, but his benefactors don't dare object publicly lest be called misogynist.
Re: (Score:2)
RMS will be forced to carry adjectives given to it by English graduates.
Stallman himself advocated for new, genderless pronouns: https://stallman.org/articles/... [stallman.org]
He's a complicated person, who doesn't fit neatly into your narrative.
Re:Stallman NFT work of art (Score:5, Insightful)
You exaggerate a bit, but only a bit. The case against Richard Stallman is similar to the case against Al Franken or John Conyors, they get smaller the longer you look at them, it's like the inverse of "fractally bad".
If the "metoo" movement wants to discredit itself, it should continue to let itself be co-opted to smear people like this.
Re:Stallman NFT work of art (Score:5, Insightful)
I see it as the woke movement inevitably eating itself. They talk about acceptance and destigmatizing mental illness but then actively try to destroy people like RMS. His only crime is not being the right kind of virtuous minority. Forget the great contributions he has made to free software or the fact that he clearly has some kind of behavioral disorder, no he's a creepy old white man. Therefore we have to get rid of him. His achievements should be lauded and his shortcomings should be pitied. He can't help what he is. Its a shame that the FOSS community has been overwhelmed by political types who are barely technical. Instead of contributing code they just talk about diversity and inclusion while kicking out those who actually do real work.
Re: (Score:2)
Even that much sounds like an exaggeration to me.
They were harassing rms for doing things like suggesting that Marvin Minsky might not have know what he was getting into when he went to a Jeffrey Epstein party (where he committed the grave non-crime of getting a foot massage from a minor).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that was the initial part but as things developed people were attacking RMS for basically being a smelly weirdo who was creepy. It quickly devolved into a melee of barely coherent personal attacks.
Mostly they are mad about something imaginary (Score:5, Informative)
> Also the only people bothered by Stallman's behavior are the same petty tyrants bothered by all things.
Most of the people really bothered about Stallman are bothered about something completely imaginary. Somebody wrote a post criticizing something Stallman said, while taking it out of context. Someone else wrote an article based on the post. Other people made posts based on the article, adding their own spin and exaggeration. People read posts claiming that Stallman said some horrible shit, posts that have little relation to what he actually said.
Re: (Score:2)
The Satoshi Nakamoto stamp is kind of hilarious [opensea.io]. Now we know what he looks like!
Likeness laws (Score:2)
From TFA
We were not aware of the likeness laws in NFTs as the market is not regulated.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this makes sense: there is no need of specific regulation for the NFT market as far as I understand: likeness laws apply as in any other context.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. You're completely not missing something. For whatever reason people seem to be under the misapprehension that copyright and trademark law somehow doesn't apply to "In the blockchain".
It's also why I get so annoyed by people trying to advocate for new laws that are the exact same as old laws except "On a computer" or "On the internet".
Re: (Score:3)
It was this way during the dotcom also. No laws specifically mentioning the internet therefore a lot of idiots just assumed everything was fair game. So many people and companies do this that you sort of need to spell it out sometimes.
"It's just a service to drive someone from point A to point B for money, but it uses an app so we're not taxis and laws don't apply to us!"
"We're scanning all the books and putting them online, but we're not a library so the laws don't apply to us!"
"We're renting out rooms f
Re: (Score:2)
It worked out really well for AirBnB and Uber, demonstrating again that regulations don't matter a lot as long as you are making money.
Bernie Madoff wasn't arrested until his investors lost money, despite the clear evidence that he was breaking regulations.
Re: Likeness laws (Score:2)
It worked out really well until it no longer did. AirBnB and Uber are getting fined weekly in some months. That's not sustainable in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You're completely not missing something. For whatever reason people seem to be under the misapprehension that copyright and trademark law somehow doesn't apply to "In the blockchain".
In this context, there is a question of whether or not the laws are being violated. For example, are copies of the image being made? As people keep saying here, an NFT is just a pointer to a web page, image, etc. You could sell an NFT that points to a person's photograph on that person's official web page without ever copying the photograph.
The thing that makes an NFT not a copyright violation is exactly the thing makes NFTs stupid and worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
In this context, there is a question of whether or not the laws are being violated. For example, are copies of the image being made? As people keep saying here, an NFT is just a pointer to a web page, image, etc. You could sell an NFT that points to a person's photograph on that person's official web page without ever copying the photograph.
As far as I understand the NFT were used as "proof of ownership" for the sale of digital art. I don't see how the kind of "proof of ownership" used matters in the context of whether the art in question violates copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
You're claiming and/or selling proof of ownership of a depiction of someone. I'd say that very much would fall under the law.
Mispelled Names? (Score:2)
You know, the same way we often suspect
More controversially
No it isn't, and you know it.
If The "Right Click and Save" Meme Didn't Do It (Score:5, Insightful)
If should be clear that in the absence of a body of laws and regulations of ownership around NFTs, tying the registration of an NFT to an actual right of ownership of something that is enforceable, an paying something of actual value (even though it only be a cryptocoin) for it buys you nothing.
The notion that you have any sort of ownership of a digital image just because it is attached to an NFT that you had transferred to your digital identity for money is absurd - often on (at least) two levels -- that the "seller" of the NFT had any ownership rights registered to the image in the first place (which might be true, but rarely is) and that the blockchain transaction represented any sort of real (meaning legally recognized) ownership transfer.
Any one who sees "your" image can use it however they like and there is nothing you can do about it (that "right click and save" thingy).
A third level of unreality to this is the images commonly being "sold" this way are intrinsically worthless - artless and ugly digital scrawls.
With a suitable body of enabling law, NFTs might in the future be the appropriate means of tracking ownership of digital art, where someone buys an artwork that has some real artistic value, but right now this is just fake scarcity for trash.
No Absence of Laws (Score:2)
If should be clear that in the absence of a body of laws and regulations of ownership around NFTs
What "absence"? Every country has a huge body of laws around the ownership of property. All NFTs are is a new way to sell things. That may raise some legal questions like which countries laws apply to a purchase etc. and some new laws may be required to sort things like this out but the basic laws about property ownership still apply.
The only difference is that instead of a piece of paper acting as the proof of ownership you have the blockchain. When new payment and proof-of-ownership methods become ava
Re: (Score:2)
The way I understand it NFTs are merely a new form of proof of ownership. The sale is still a sale, or in the case of a digital asset a transfer of copyrights, with the NFT being the replacement of what would otherwise be any other kind of notary system which can verify the trade.
This means the seller needs to own the copyrights he wishes to sell and the copyrights need to be valid for the sale to be legitimate, otherwise the seller is attempting to sell something he cannot, no matter whether NFTs are invol
Re: (Score:2)
The way I understand it NFTs are merely a new form of proof of ownership. The sale is still a sale, or in the case of a digital asset a transfer of copyrights, with the NFT being the replacement of what would otherwise be any other kind of notary system which can verify the trade.
From what I've read, most NFTs are explicitly not a sale of ownership of the image, web page, forum post, etc. You're basically buying a certificate of authenticity without buying the thing that the certificate says is authentic.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case the wording they are using is likely misleading [archive.org]: they clearly write about "owning a Cipher Punk" and there is a "buy" link under the images.
Furthermore, the sale was hosted on the OpenSea platform and the OpenSea documentation [opensea.io] explicitly talks about Intellectual Property being sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The analogous example would be me selling a work of art you created, and providing a line itemized paper receipt indicating your work of art was the work I sold, and the amount of money given to me in exchange.
The receipt I made and handed over implies a sale, but doesn't represent a sale. I don't have the right to sell your property, and the buyer having my receipt or not doesn't change that fact.
There are laws against me doing this, with or without a paper receipt.
The receipt acknowledges that the transaction has taken place. Here the NFT is more like a certificate of ownership and the receipt is more like whatever you get from OpenSea as, well, receipt for the transaction taking place (I assume the platform handles the transaction).
I believe [Dragonslicer] is saying those same laws should apply to a blockchain receipt given under those same circumstances... but without a human attached to the sale, the law isn't well equipped to do much about it.
This less clear to me. There is definitely humans or at least legal entities attached to any sale, in this case I guess Cipher Punks as an organization was trying to sell to others through OpenSea, which is acting as intermediary being th
I hope that on my deathbed (Score:2)
I can proudly claim to still have no idea what an NFT is.
Re: (Score:2)
vaporware (Score:2)
literally, vaporware meant to divest tangible assets from those foolish enough to buy them.
ostracized ... (Score:3)
"who have been ostracized for harmful personal behavior, including Jacob Appelbaum and Richard Stallman"
i've read some allegations about appelbaum's abuse and they are very, very weak at best, but there are quite a few of them. so, i don't really know, maybe there's some truth to that.
however nothing of the sort is true for richard stallman, whose only crime was expressing his views on a subject in a way that was totally harmless but thrown out of context and exaggerated to discredit him.
putting these 2 together in this context is despicable slander. shame on this article, reporter and media outlet, so, without further ado ...
Mr Russell Brandom (author of this crap): you are a sorry piece of shit, and I'm taking note that The Verge is just another shit publisher to ignore. not really needed, but thanks for the info, slashdot.
I don't see a problem (Score:3)
Nobody purchased anything covered by copyright... they purchased the rights to say they own a certificate related to those items, and even then those 'rights' are only respected by other NFT-buying fools.
It's like the overwhelming amount of anything related to blockchains - scammers, scammed, and money laundering.
Re: (Score:2)
Hosting the images on a website might be a copyright violation, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)