Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Is Play to Earn Real or is it All Just a Big Gimmick? | MMONFT | MMORPG.com

124

Comments

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 15
    Vrika said:
    bcbully said:

    Revenue streams of the game:
    • Breeding will cost AXS and SLP tokens. AXS will be collected to the Treasury as revenue, and SLP will be burnt. More than 85% revenue of the game is generated from breeding activities. 
    • Marketplace fee: Axie takes a 4.5% fee for every transaction in the marketplace.
    • Other revenue streams are selling lands, stickers, entry prices for tournaments, marketing, etc.
    So in other words more than 85% of revenue comes from people creating new axie and then some additional revenue as the creator sells that axie to buyer.

    That's the one-time revenue for buying the axie you want. After that you can earn as long as there are enough newcomers buying new axie to fund the income of old players who already own theirs.
    No 85% comes from old players breeding new axie. They buy $axie ($ indicates the coin), combine that with SLP to make new axie---> keep playing.

    The axie used in breeding are taken out of circulation by way of the treasury. $axie floor will continue to raise until Blue Mavis shutters the game and begins to sell.

    edit - Players are paid for playing in $SLP, smooth love potions, not $axie. They have to buy $axie. 
    Post edited by bcbully on
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,990
    edited October 15
    Ungood said:
    laserit said:
    bcbully said:
    laserit said:
    @bcbully

    Here’s another question for you and some more food for thought.

    Your country is by far the biggest economic power in the world. One of the he big reasons behind that is that the business world uses USD.

    What do you think is going to happen to the US economy if the business world decides to leave the USD?

    There are a lot of players fighting to make that happen. It will be good for some, not so good for others. I’m sure some will profit handsomely from it.

    Think about the answers to those two questions, think about the ramifications to your country no matter your political affiliation.

     Imho
    Yeah I know man. Loss of power and control. Inability to fund public services. Things will get reeeal expensive, chiefly war. Inflation like we've never could have imagined. Why do you think countries around the world are trying desprately to find ways to tax crypto currencies.

    It's not just an US issue. It's a IMF issue. Look up what they've been saying lately. 
    https://cryptoslate.com/new-imf-report-calls-crypto-a-threat-to-global-economy/



    Fyi We've seen this time and time again over the ages.

    Will the dollar die, no i don't think so. It's a stable median of exchange. Will you continue to have to add 0s to your bill. Yes without question.


    The reason the business world uses USD is real simple:

    It's the Safest, Most Stable and Most Reliable ***STANDARD*** that exists in the World today. Your country gets a great benefit from that fact.

    If the business world decides to leave the USD, its because that is no longer True. And if that is no longer true then  America has lost its place in the world.

    Imho
    My understanding was because America was a military super power, and we demanded that we be the king shits, or we would not play ball with the rest of the world, that is one of the ways America got sucked into playing World Police. 

    To be honest, I am in fact looking forward to when the Chinese Yuan takes over, or something else. 
    Using the USD is completely voluntary. There are no regulations never has been. It’s all about trust that the currency will stay at the same value. If it’s up and down like a yo-yo it ain’t no damn good. Your right about the fact that WW2 put the US in that position. Things like the Marshall Plan.

    edit: It’s real simple, people trust your money. It's all about trust. What are people trying to do with Crypto right now? Trying to undercut peoples trust in the USD.

    When I purchase an expensive piece of machinery, I usually have to wait a minimum 9 months before delivery probably a lot longer today with these supply chain issues. When I sign the contract I have to worry about how much money that machine is going to cost me come delivery time.

    For you it will be exactly the same price. Be careful what you wish for.
    Post edited by laserit on

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 15
    Asheram said:
    Nice find. Steam just made a catostrophic mistake. 

    They just chose to become Blockbuster. gg

    Steam China much?
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,234
    Quizzical said:

    This is why I expect someone to eventually apply a F2P model to the P2E approach. With these combined, you could easily add unlimited non earning accounts, with earning slowly growing as you add investment. This would allow for free players to enjoy the game, but for players that invest to earn some returns as well. It would still allow for investors to run scholarships for those that want to earn with no investment, but all of this would be done AFTER players are playing the game. I see this as the future for most online games.

    Oh, and for how this all began, the oldest game that I am aware of that has any variation of P2E was Project Entropia (now Entropia Universe)
    The problem is that a free to play Ponzi scheme doesn't work.  Why can you sell axies for so much money?  Because people have to pay a lot of money to get them in order to play the game!  Without the big buy-in for players trying to get good axies so that they can make money themselves, who will buy the axies that people are trying to sell?
    I am not sure you have thought about what you just said:

    1. F2P can not have a buy in.... that is P2P.
    2. Axies cost money to make, so people sell them at a cost greater than that amount.

    If you are required to buy Axies, then it is not F2P (which is why I said someone will comeup with a F2P model). 

    Also, Axie Unlimited is not P2E because you can breed an sell Axies. It is P2E because you can EARN SLP by playing. 

    P2E is pretty new, and they are working out the details still. However, if it is done right, it is both scalable and provides a long term value. I remember when people were saying similar things about F2P (and still are). However, the reality is that this approach does add value, and as such will evolve to be the new standard.
    bcbully
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,234
    Quizzical said:

    Then again, the success of some awful mobile games at getting whales to drop ridiculous amounts of money does suggest that it's plausible.
    It is interesting that in this case the whales are not players. They are investors. They put money into the game, so that others can play, and so that they can profit share from that.
    bcbully
  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 5,016
    edited October 15
    bcbully said:
    Asheram said:
    Nice find. Steam just made a catostrophic mistake. 

    They just chose to become Blockbuster. gg

    Steam China much?
    Or maybe they just dont want their platform to be used for money laundering.
    https://fortune.com/2021/08/10/nft-rocks-200000/
    $200k nft digital rocks.
    Torval
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,580
    edited October 15
    Asheram said:
    bcbully said:
    Asheram said:
    Nice find. Steam just made a catostrophic mistake. 

    They just chose to become Blockbuster. gg

    Steam China much?
    Or maybe they just dont want their platform to be used for money laundering.
    https://fortune.com/2021/08/10/nft-rocks-200000/
    $200k nft digital rocks.
    Interesting info. I didn't know Valve made this change. The article conclusion isn't very well thought out (no surprise there since anyone with internet can be a "journalist" now). 

    From the article:
    "That said, Valve does allow people to exchange virtual goods for Steam Wallet funds through the community market, so SpacePirate's belief that Steam doesn't permit items with real-world value doesn't entirely hold water."

    Valve doesn't allow users to cash out their Steam Wallets for money. The money chain in Steam is a one way street. The value in digital items on Steam comes from third party auction sites and Valve has already come under heavy scrutiny over this.

    Allowing users to cash out Steam Wallets for fiat currency will only add more scrutiny and entangle them in tax reporting.

    If Steam ever goes the way of Blockbuster it won't be crypto schemes that send them there. I think it will be subscription services like Game Pass and how service oriented game media libraries evolve.
    Asheram
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    Torval said:
    Asheram said:
    bcbully said:
    Asheram said:
    Nice find. Steam just made a catostrophic mistake. 

    They just chose to become Blockbuster. gg

    Steam China much?
    Or maybe they just dont want their platform to be used for money laundering.
    https://fortune.com/2021/08/10/nft-rocks-200000/
    $200k nft digital rocks.
    Interesting info. I didn't know Valve made this change. The article conclusion isn't very well thought out (no surprise there since anyone with internet can be a "journalist" now). 

    From the article:
    "That said, Valve does allow people to exchange virtual goods for Steam Wallet funds through the community market, so SpacePirate's belief that Steam doesn't permit items with real-world value doesn't entirely hold water."

    Valve doesn't allow users to cash out their Steam Wallets for money. The money chain in Steam is a one way street. The value in digital items on Steam comes from third party auction sites and Valve has already come under heavy scrutiny over this.

    Allowing users to cash out Steam Wallets for fiat currency will only add more scrutiny and entangle them in tax reporting.

    If Steam ever goes the way of Blockbuster it won't be crypto schemes that send them there. I think it will be subscription services like Game Pass and how service oriented game media libraries evolve.


    Im not sure you guys see this. From marvel comics trying to ban its artist from selling their original work via nfts. to apple not allowing crypto purchases of nft through apps on their app store. to steam.  

    One reason and one reason only, complete 100% control of proceeds. (The exact oppisite of axie as we further examine) Moving forward we will see more of these stories over the next couple years from this old gaurd.

    Think about this. Someone builds the exact same type of platform as steam, but the items steam now sells and gives are nfts and can traded freely among players. Trust me it's coming. Players will choose. 

    To your point about steam wallets, steam wallets are not used with these games. they would play 0 part in the transactions, thus the ban.

    Players control their wallets in blockchain games. No 3rd party wanted or needed.


    AsheramKyleran
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,580
    edited October 15
    Disney/Marvel isn't banning original artists from selling their art as NFT. They're claiming complete copyright control over those images and IP based on the relationship those workers have had with Marvel. They're banning those artists from selling that art period. It has nothing to do with NFTs.

    This is what makes you come across as an MLM cultist and not someone whose opinion I can take seriously. You're distorting facts to try and sell an agenda and then claiming to see things that others can't.

    In Steam Land if a digital asset can be sold on the Steam Market it fills the Steam Wallet and has no real world value. If a digital asset can be sold off the Steam Market and has real world value and can also be traded inside Steam Land then it would have real world value. If it were traded on the Steam Market then it would be a real world value item on the Steam Market. If Steam Wallet funds are used to purchase these assets in game then Steam would also be part of the revenue chain and involved in taxes. It is convoluted and fraught with legal encumbrance for very little or no return to Steam.

    It makes perfect sense that Steam would ban these games. They're an entertainment service and not a speculation/trading platform. I guess they made a decision not be a speculation and trading platform. That's perfectly reasonable and no cause for alarm or suspicion they will tank as a result. Netflix, Hulu, and others are pure entertainment platforms and are doing just fine.

    I don't trust you or anyone trying to sell me something to make money from me. I'm sure those platforms are coming, but that is completely irrelevant.
    StizzledlaseritbcbullyAsheramVrika
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • StizzledStizzled Member EpicPosts: 2,350
    bcbully said:
    Think about this. Someone builds the exact same type of platform as steam, but the items steam now sells and gives are nfts and can traded freely among players. Trust me it's coming. Players will choose. 
    And it will be full of potential investments and wannabe investors, but not many real games or gamers.
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 15
    Torval said:
    Disney/Marvel isn't banning original artists from selling their art as NFT. They're claiming complete copyright control over those images and IP based on the relationship those workers have had with Marvel. They're banning those artists from selling that art period. It has nothing to do with NFTs.

    This is what makes you come across as an MLM cultist and not someone whose opinion I can take seriously. You're distorting facts to try and sell an agenda and then claiming to see things that others can't.

    In Steam Land if a digital asset can be sold on the Steam Market it fills the Steam Wallet and has no real world value. If a digital asset can be sold off the Steam Market and has real world value and can also be traded inside Steam Land then it would have real world value. If it were traded on the Steam Market then it would be a real world value item on the Steam Market. If Steam Wallet funds are used to purchase these assets in game then Steam would also be part of the revenue chain and involved in taxes. It is convoluted and fraught with legal encumbrance for very little or no return to Steam.

    It makes perfect sense that Steam would ban these games. They're an entertainment service and not a speculation/trading platform. I guess they made a decision not be a speculation and trading platform. That's perfectly reasonable and no cause for alarm or suspicion they will tank as a result. Netflix, Hulu, and others are pure entertainment platforms and are doing just fine.

    I don't trust you or anyone trying to sell me something to make money from me. I'm sure those platforms are coming, but that is completely irrelevant.
    Artist have always sold their work. This IS specifically about NFTs. 

     https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/news/marvel-and-dc-say-artists-cant-sell-nfts-of-their-superheroes


    SEP 13, 2021

    Marvel and DC Say Artists Can’t Sell NFTs of Their Superheroes

    But the ban is seen as a serious impediment for artists who sell valuable collectibles based on derivative work of Marvel and DC characters — one that will prevent them from accessing an important source of revenue. To soften the blow, Marvel is apparently receptive to giving artists secondary revenue opportunities on VeVe, an app for digital collectibles."

    https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-copyright-explained

    "So what rights are granted to an artist when it comes to copyright? And how can they affect those in possession of a physical work of art? Look no further than Section 106, Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, codified in Title 17 of the U.S. Code. For those in too much of a hurry, I’ll summarize: Copyright gives artists who have created fixed, tangible works a bundle of rights in those works. The rights provide both artistic protection and ensure that artists can profit from what they’ve made. After an artist creates a piece, they have the right to make copies of their work, distribute those copies, perform or display the work publicly, or make works that derive from the original."

    And to the explanation of steam "wallet" there is 0 liquidity in it. I'm not ssure you understand how nft market places work. You don't have to trust me. I don't need your money either bud lol. Just remeber what you've been told.

    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • StizzledStizzled Member EpicPosts: 2,350
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    TorvalQuizzicalbcbullyAsheramlaseritScot
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,658
    bcbully said:
    Torval said:
    Interesting info. I didn't know Valve made this change. The article conclusion isn't very well thought out (no surprise there since anyone with internet can be a "journalist" now). 

    From the article:
    "That said, Valve does allow people to exchange virtual goods for Steam Wallet funds through the community market, so SpacePirate's belief that Steam doesn't permit items with real-world value doesn't entirely hold water."

    Valve doesn't allow users to cash out their Steam Wallets for money. The money chain in Steam is a one way street. The value in digital items on Steam comes from third party auction sites and Valve has already come under heavy scrutiny over this.

    Allowing users to cash out Steam Wallets for fiat currency will only add more scrutiny and entangle them in tax reporting.

    If Steam ever goes the way of Blockbuster it won't be crypto schemes that send them there. I think it will be subscription services like Game Pass and how service oriented game media libraries evolve.
    Im not sure you guys see this. From marvel comics trying to ban its artist from selling their original work via nfts. to apple not allowing crypto purchases of nft through apps on their app store. to steam.  

    One reason and one reason only, complete 100% control of proceeds. (The exact oppisite of axie as we further examine) Moving forward we will see more of these stories over the next couple years from this old gaurd.

    Think about this. Someone builds the exact same type of platform as steam, but the items steam now sells and gives are nfts and can traded freely among players. Trust me it's coming. Players will choose. 

    To your point about steam wallets, steam wallets are not used with these games. they would play 0 part in the transactions, thus the ban.

    Players control their wallets in blockchain games. No 3rd party wanted or needed.
    While there will certainly be platforms that attempt to allow you to buy a digital copy of a game and then later resell it to other players, that's going to face a tremendous amount of resistance from game developers.

    Game developers need to make money.  If only 10% of the people who "buy" your game pay you for it and the rest buy a "used" copy, then "buy to play" is not a viable business model.  In that case, developers will have to find creative ways to either get whales to pay a ton of money or make sure that people who buy that used copy still have to pay to play it.  For all of the nickel-and-diming of the most predatory of the "free to play" games to make its way into single-player offline desktop games would be a very bad thing.
    TorvalAsheram
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 16
    Torval said:
    Bruh you are wrong flat out. No big deal. Marvel and DC artist have been selling thier sketchs and finished works FOREVER. This is about NFTs specifically. Has nothing to do with me. Distrust hate me all you want.

    Just take a minute and understand before you start in with your bullshit.

    "This practice of comic artists selling their own artworks mostly dates back from the 70's in the USA. Prior to this artworks were retained by the publishers and sometime even destroyed by editors to clean up shelves space ! Neal Adams, the most influencial artist of the 70's was instrumental in ensuring that comic art where returned to the creators. It took him and other artists which joined this fight, nearly 20 years to have publishers returned all original artwork produced over work for hire terms. The market for original artwork really started to take off during the late 70's early 80's.

    In Europe, work for hire in the intellectual business (movies, books, comics...) does not exist. So artist have always retained property of their art as well as that of the characters they created. Nevertheless original comic art sales started mostly again during the 70's. Sure the Pop Art movement (Wahrol Liechtenstein... )did a lot to shed light on this previously derided art form."


    It's a HUGE market.
    https://comicarttracker.com/marvel-comics-original-art-for-sale
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 16
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    Post edited by bcbully on
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,990
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    That's the way it works.

    Also, if you invent something for your employer while being paid, you have no rights to the patent.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • StizzledStizzled Member EpicPosts: 2,350
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    I'm going to need a link to where Marvel and DC are stopping artists from creating and selling their own original work (and by this I don't mean new drawings of copyrighted characters, I mean completely original) and not just stopping them from selling copyrighted material.

    Selling original artwork is not the same as selling digital NFT copies. The artists have the right to sell the original, they don't have the right to sell and distribute copies.
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 16
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    I'm going to need a link to where Marvel and DC are stopping artists from creating and selling their own original work (and by this I don't mean new drawings of copyrighted characters, I mean completely original) and not just stopping them from selling copyrighted material.

    Selling original artwork is not the same as selling digital NFT copies. The artists have the right to sell the original, they don't have the right to sell and distribute copies.
    https://www.eyerys.com/articles/timeline/dc-comics-and-marvel-comics-dont-want-artists-sell-nfts-featuring-their-characters?page=1#event-a-href-articles-timeline-nissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-her-band-member-went-viralnissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-with-her-band-member-that-went-viral-a

    The two comics titans are cracking down on the ability of their comic book artists to sell NFTs of characters owned by each of those two companies.

    Comic book artists argue that they have always been allowed to sell their artwork. However, the two companies said that artists are always allowed to sell their physical artworks, and not digital.

    What's more, both DC and Marvel noted that the tradition of comic book artist being allowed to sell their original physical artworks are limited to works on pencil and ink arts, and have only existed as a "gift," of sorts, by the companies, and not a right.

    Seems pretty complicated... I believe reference is important. This ban went into affect within the last few months.

    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • StizzledStizzled Member EpicPosts: 2,350
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    I'm going to need a link to where Marvel and DC are stopping artists from creating and selling their own original work (and by this I don't mean new drawings of copyrighted characters, I mean completely original) and not just stopping them from selling copyrighted material.

    Selling original artwork is not the same as selling digital NFT copies. The artists have the right to sell the original, they don't have the right to sell and distribute copies.
    https://www.eyerys.com/articles/timeline/dc-comics-and-marvel-comics-dont-want-artists-sell-nfts-featuring-their-characters?page=1#event-a-href-articles-timeline-nissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-her-band-member-went-viralnissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-with-her-band-member-that-went-viral-a

    The two comics titans are cracking down on the ability of their comic book artists to sell NFTs of characters owned by each of those two companies.

    Comic book artists argue that they have always been allowed to sell their artwork. However, the two companies said that artists are always allowed to sell their physical artworks, and not digital.

    What's more, both DC and Marvel noted that the tradition of comic book artist being allowed to sell their original physical artworks are limited to works on pencil and ink arts, and have only existed as a "gift," of sorts, by the companies, and not a right.

    Seems pretty complicated... I believe reference is important. This ban went into affect within the last few months.

    Makes sense to me. Marvel and DC allow them to sell the original physical copy that they drew, but they do not allow them to make copies of that art and sell it, physical or digital. NFTs are no different.

    They cant redraw copyrighted characters and they can't make digital copies of old art to sell as NFTs. There's still nothing stopping them from creating wholly new artwork and selling NFTs.

    The only reason they want to sell art of those specific characters is it's worth more money, which I find greedier than a company protecting its IP.
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 16
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    I'm going to need a link to where Marvel and DC are stopping artists from creating and selling their own original work (and by this I don't mean new drawings of copyrighted characters, I mean completely original) and not just stopping them from selling copyrighted material.

    Selling original artwork is not the same as selling digital NFT copies. The artists have the right to sell the original, they don't have the right to sell and distribute copies.
    https://www.eyerys.com/articles/timeline/dc-comics-and-marvel-comics-dont-want-artists-sell-nfts-featuring-their-characters?page=1#event-a-href-articles-timeline-nissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-her-band-member-went-viralnissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-with-her-band-member-that-went-viral-a

    The two comics titans are cracking down on the ability of their comic book artists to sell NFTs of characters owned by each of those two companies.

    Comic book artists argue that they have always been allowed to sell their artwork. However, the two companies said that artists are always allowed to sell their physical artworks, and not digital.

    What's more, both DC and Marvel noted that the tradition of comic book artist being allowed to sell their original physical artworks are limited to works on pencil and ink arts, and have only existed as a "gift," of sorts, by the companies, and not a right.

    Seems pretty complicated... I believe reference is important. This ban went into affect within the last few months.

    Makes sense to me. Marvel and DC allow them to sell the original physical copy that they drew, but they do not allow them to make copies of that art and sell it, physical or digital. NFTs are no different.

    They cant redraw copyrighted characters and they can't make digital copies of old art to sell as NFTs. There's still nothing stopping them from creating wholly new artwork and selling NFTs.

    The only reason they want to sell art of those specific characters is it's worth more money, which I find greedier than a company protecting its IP.
    "Remember: A comic book artist doesn’t retain the right to reproduce their original art, but they do keep the right to sell that piece of art that they created.'

    We all are pretty lay on the of topic comic book art. Look closer at the term digital. Again reference is important. Nice read below.


    https://www.pipelinecomics.com/nfts-will-dc-steal-ownership-of-comic-book-original-art/




    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • StizzledStizzled Member EpicPosts: 2,350
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    I'm going to need a link to where Marvel and DC are stopping artists from creating and selling their own original work (and by this I don't mean new drawings of copyrighted characters, I mean completely original) and not just stopping them from selling copyrighted material.

    Selling original artwork is not the same as selling digital NFT copies. The artists have the right to sell the original, they don't have the right to sell and distribute copies.
    https://www.eyerys.com/articles/timeline/dc-comics-and-marvel-comics-dont-want-artists-sell-nfts-featuring-their-characters?page=1#event-a-href-articles-timeline-nissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-her-band-member-went-viralnissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-with-her-band-member-that-went-viral-a

    The two comics titans are cracking down on the ability of their comic book artists to sell NFTs of characters owned by each of those two companies.

    Comic book artists argue that they have always been allowed to sell their artwork. However, the two companies said that artists are always allowed to sell their physical artworks, and not digital.

    What's more, both DC and Marvel noted that the tradition of comic book artist being allowed to sell their original physical artworks are limited to works on pencil and ink arts, and have only existed as a "gift," of sorts, by the companies, and not a right.

    Seems pretty complicated... I believe reference is important. This ban went into affect within the last few months.

    Makes sense to me. Marvel and DC allow them to sell the original physical copy that they drew, but they do not allow them to make copies of that art and sell it, physical or digital. NFTs are no different.

    They cant redraw copyrighted characters and they can't make digital copies of old art to sell as NFTs. There's still nothing stopping them from creating wholly new artwork and selling NFTs.

    The only reason they want to sell art of those specific characters is it's worth more money, which I find greedier than a company protecting its IP.
    "Remember: A comic book artist doesn’t retain the right to reproduce their original art, but they do keep the right to sell that piece of art that they created.'

    We all are pretty lay on the of topic comic book art. Look closer at the term digital. Again reference is important. Nice read below.


    https://www.pipelinecomics.com/nfts-will-dc-steal-ownership-of-comic-book-original-art/




    I'm not seeing the issue. I'm sorry, I'm not on the artists side here. They don't have the right, period.

    Nothing stopping them from creating their own art and selling it however they want.

    You work/worked for Marvel drawing Spider-Man and want to sell Spider-Man NFTs? Too bad, sell original artwork of flowers, create new heroes or cartoon characters, anything but copyrighted material.
    laserit
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,042
    edited October 16
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    I'm going to need a link to where Marvel and DC are stopping artists from creating and selling their own original work (and by this I don't mean new drawings of copyrighted characters, I mean completely original) and not just stopping them from selling copyrighted material.

    Selling original artwork is not the same as selling digital NFT copies. The artists have the right to sell the original, they don't have the right to sell and distribute copies.
    https://www.eyerys.com/articles/timeline/dc-comics-and-marvel-comics-dont-want-artists-sell-nfts-featuring-their-characters?page=1#event-a-href-articles-timeline-nissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-her-band-member-went-viralnissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-with-her-band-member-that-went-viral-a

    The two comics titans are cracking down on the ability of their comic book artists to sell NFTs of characters owned by each of those two companies.

    Comic book artists argue that they have always been allowed to sell their artwork. However, the two companies said that artists are always allowed to sell their physical artworks, and not digital.

    What's more, both DC and Marvel noted that the tradition of comic book artist being allowed to sell their original physical artworks are limited to works on pencil and ink arts, and have only existed as a "gift," of sorts, by the companies, and not a right.

    Seems pretty complicated... I believe reference is important. This ban went into affect within the last few months.

    Makes sense to me. Marvel and DC allow them to sell the original physical copy that they drew, but they do not allow them to make copies of that art and sell it, physical or digital. NFTs are no different.

    They cant redraw copyrighted characters and they can't make digital copies of old art to sell as NFTs. There's still nothing stopping them from creating wholly new artwork and selling NFTs.

    The only reason they want to sell art of those specific characters is it's worth more money, which I find greedier than a company protecting its IP.
    "Remember: A comic book artist doesn’t retain the right to reproduce their original art, but they do keep the right to sell that piece of art that they created.'

    We all are pretty lay on the of topic comic book art. Look closer at the term digital. Again reference is important. Nice read below.


    https://www.pipelinecomics.com/nfts-will-dc-steal-ownership-of-comic-book-original-art/




    I'm not seeing the issue. I'm sorry, I'm not on the artists side here. They don't have the right, period.

    Nothing stopping them from creating their own art and selling it however they want.

    You work/worked for Marvel drawing Spider-Man and want to sell Spider-Man NFTs? Too bad, sell original artwork of flowers, create new heroes or cartoon characters, anything but copyrighted material.
    Until a few months ago. Comic book artist sold their original work, full stop.

    Their interpretation of wonder woman, their interpretation of spider man.

    Now DC and Marvel say they can not put those same drawings (pencil or digital) in NFT format. 

    In NFT format these comic book artist were selling these works and getting a royalty (programmed into the NFT) each time those 1 of 1 drawings were resold.

    The royaty part is what DC and Marvel take umbrage with. DC and Marvel are cut out from that royalty. 
    Post edited by bcbully on
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 7,128
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    bcbully said:
    Stizzled said:
    There's a huge difference between being and independent artist and creating your own work and being employed by a company to make art for your employer.

    These artists don't own the characters and have no right to sell art that features them.

    There's nothing stopping them from creating new artwork that doesn't feature copyrighted material to sell as NFTs. Why can't they do that?
    BECAUSE MARVEL AND DC SAID THEY CANT DO IT lmao. 

    That's why there's a problem. 


    I'm going to need a link to where Marvel and DC are stopping artists from creating and selling their own original work (and by this I don't mean new drawings of copyrighted characters, I mean completely original) and not just stopping them from selling copyrighted material.

    Selling original artwork is not the same as selling digital NFT copies. The artists have the right to sell the original, they don't have the right to sell and distribute copies.
    https://www.eyerys.com/articles/timeline/dc-comics-and-marvel-comics-dont-want-artists-sell-nfts-featuring-their-characters?page=1#event-a-href-articles-timeline-nissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-her-band-member-went-viralnissa-sabyan-and-her-affair-with-her-band-member-that-went-viral-a

    The two comics titans are cracking down on the ability of their comic book artists to sell NFTs of characters owned by each of those two companies.

    Comic book artists argue that they have always been allowed to sell their artwork. However, the two companies said that artists are always allowed to sell their physical artworks, and not digital.

    What's more, both DC and Marvel noted that the tradition of comic book artist being allowed to sell their original physical artworks are limited to works on pencil and ink arts, and have only existed as a "gift," of sorts, by the companies, and not a right.

    Seems pretty complicated... I believe reference is important. This ban went into affect within the last few months.

    Makes sense to me. Marvel and DC allow them to sell the original physical copy that they drew, but they do not allow them to make copies of that art and sell it, physical or digital. NFTs are no different.

    They cant redraw copyrighted characters and they can't make digital copies of old art to sell as NFTs. There's still nothing stopping them from creating wholly new artwork and selling NFTs.

    The only reason they want to sell art of those specific characters is it's worth more money, which I find greedier than a company protecting its IP.
    "Remember: A comic book artist doesn’t retain the right to reproduce their original art, but they do keep the right to sell that piece of art that they created.'

    We all are pretty lay on the of topic comic book art. Look closer at the term digital. Again reference is important. Nice read below.


    https://www.pipelinecomics.com/nfts-will-dc-steal-ownership-of-comic-book-original-art/




    I'm not seeing the issue. I'm sorry, I'm not on the artists side here. They don't have the right, period.

    Nothing stopping them from creating their own art and selling it however they want.

    You work/worked for Marvel drawing Spider-Man and want to sell Spider-Man NFTs? Too bad, sell original artwork of flowers, create new heroes or cartoon characters, anything but copyrighted material.
    Until a few months ago. Comic book artist sold their original work, full stop.

    Their interpretation of wonder woman, their interpretation of spider man.

    Now DC and Marvel say they can not put those same drawings (pencil or digital) in NFT format. 

    In NFT format these comic book artist were selling these works and getting a royalty (programmed into the NFT) each time those 1 of 1 drawings were resold.

    The royaty part is what DC and Marvel take umbrage with. DC and Marvel are cut out from that royalty. 
    You can create a billion NFTs from one piece of art if you wish. The result would be like some collectible items that are numbered #1, #2, #3, etc.

    Now that NFTs are becoming popular I hope that artists who have managed to get right to sell their original work would also get the right to create and sell a single NFT for each original work. It would be logical extension to their right and good additional benefit for them.

    However creating a NFT means that you're creating a copy, and the artists have never had right to create and sell copies of their works, just the originals. As it is the large media companies are being consistent about that, and it's the artist who want to sell NFTs who are trying to get additional right to do something they've never been allowed to.
    Stizzled
     
Sign In or Register to comment.