BRIAN D WILLIAMS wrote:
Has anyone been looking into it? I have a couple pieces I'm ready to mint on Rarible & OpenSea.

Please keep us all posted on your progress, as I'm sure many here would be interested in following your lead.

KM

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Please keep us all posted on your progress, as I'm sure many here would be interested in following your lead.

KM

Thanks I'll definitely do that. This space is dominated by digital characters as far as the type of art that's most popular right now but I do see a space thats being carved out with more traditional photography utilizing NFT's.

I'll keep the community updated if people are interested in hearing me discuss the process and things I've learned along the way.

BRIAN D WILLIAMS wrote:
I'll keep the community updated if people are interested in hearing me discuss the process and things I've learned along the way.

I think that many people would be interested to read of your progress

pbdimages wrote:
I've created a handful (3) of NFTs so far on Opensea., not yet available in the market. 
I'll probably wait till it gets to 10 to make the collection available for trade/ purchase.
There's a bit of an entry fee (gas fees), so I'm interested in possibly joining forces with other creatives, in part to manage this risk which changes from day to day.  Marketing NFTs also involves some creativity.

Hey thats awesome, keep me up to date on what you mint. Gas is definitely high right now...

As far as marketing, Twitter & Discord are the places to focus on. Build a community through those channels, at the moment thats where all the collectors are at.

pbdimages wrote:
Something for the MM community
https://editorial.superrare.com/2022/01 … hion-nfts/ .

Thats cool!

Dan Howell wrote:
https://petapixel.com/2022/01/28/over-8 … agiarized/

this does not give me confidence that NFT are a serious avenue or marketplace for photographers.

This is referring to minting for free on OpenSea. Doesn't apply across the board.

Dan Howell wrote:
https://petapixel.com/2022/01/28/over-8 … agiarized/

this does not give me confidence that NFT are a serious avenue or marketplace for photographers.

I think this is just a reflection of the fact that we're in the wild wild west phase of NFTs where the law hasn't caught up with the technology:
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/12 … innovation
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-col … -west.html

Right now I see NFTs as more suitable for digital art and digitized physical art than photographs, but there is definitely a space for photography.

Dan Howell wrote:
https://petapixel.com/2022/01/28/over-8 … agiarized/

this does not give me confidence that NFT are a serious avenue or marketplace for photographers.

Missing the forest for the trees.

This is a common theme when quizzically looking at the concept of "NFTs".

Always remember to ask if the standard being levied is unique to NFTs or not. For example, digital art never had fakes and plagiarism before, of course they did? Physical art, millenium old problem! Were these issues ever reconciled in those mediums? Or does the NFT medium simply allow us to quantify it faster? In this case, all of this is true. The NFT medium is an improvement because we can publicly access all of the NFTs created on that platform programmatically for analysis, without asking OpenSea or any platform. We never had the capability of doing that on Flickr, or Photobucket, or even here. If we went out of our way we hoped that a third party service could notify us of our images being posted somewhere.

Even so, whose problem is that? The actual standard here is whether the NFT medium is "serious avenue or marketplace for photographers". An article about a marketplace for that medium of art makes you question the medium? Thats a completely new standard levied exclusively at NFTs. Innocently, but hope you can see how thats a separate higher standard that couldn't apply to anything else. But even still whose problem is that? Thats the customer and resellers problem, not the photographer or actual artists. To me its actually saying that there is a chance for everyone to be making money, which includes the actual copyright holders and creators if they posted it. Consumers have to figure their own shit out, whats that have to do with a photographer marketing LOL, its a consumer protection issue not a merchant protection issue. Consumers are clearly spending way more money on this medium for living artists. What do you really need to know?

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Missing the forest for the trees.

This is a common theme when quizzically looking at the concept of "NFTs".

really?
https://fstoppers.com/opinion/brutal-ta … ast-594239

Dan Howell wrote:
really?
https://fstoppers.com/opinion/brutal-ta … ast-594239

yes, really. once again, whose problem is that?

its the person buying, its not the creator's concern about what reason someone will buy their art. the buyer can be purely consumptive to enjoy the work and current possession, they can be aiming for a store of value and investment. that wasn't the artists problem before and it isn't the artist's problem now. the medium of NFT doesn't change that over the medium of film or the medium of raster jpeg or any other medium.

Even for that article, think about all the individual people involved.

Creator

Initial possessor

Future possessor


If you were participating in the NFT space you would know that many NFTs are obtainable by the initial possessor for free, so it is not prudent to call them buyers (it also isn't prudent to call them owners either, but that wasn't a standard mentioned here so its a story for another day). In any case, no matter whether they bought or minted for free, they interacted with the original creator. For us, thats all that matters. The people showed up and were willing to make a transaction.

If that person wants to try to turn what they possess into a ponzi scheme, thats on them.

So just because the word/acronym "NFT" is involved, doesn't mean you need to clutch your pearls just because people you happen to respect are writing articles that also use the word "NFT" in them. They're talking about a specific kind of transaction that has nothing to do with whether photographers can sell as the initial creator - which is the basis of this thread. If you want to avoid a ponzi scheme then don't make a ponzi scheme, releasing your photographs in that medium doesn't make it a ponzi scheme, promising returns from non-productive assets relying on future investors to pay out old ones is what makes something a ponzi scheme.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
This is a common theme when quizzically looking at the concept of "NFTs".

I totally agree. I've posted in multiple threads about some of the exciting things happening in the NFT space. Obviously, "buyer beware" applies, but most people dismissing NFTs are missing a seismic shift in the art world, and photography is playing a bigger and bigger role.

Major auction houses are selling photography NFTs. Mona Kuhn recently sold out her Bushes and Succulents series, and secondary market prices have been climbing steadily. Drift's photography has generated millions of dollars in sales revenue.

Every day I see photographers selling work that ranges from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand, and more. A single sale to a recognized NFT collector can transform a photographer's entire body of work. Photographers are selling everything from landscapes to abstract, street photography, and nudes. Film and digital photography is selling.

I personally know three people that have become millionaires from buying the right NFTs, and you can easily find and follow hundreds of people on Twitter that are achieving unbelievable success. NFTs are transforming the lives of artists and collectors.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:

I totally agree. I've posted in multiple threads about some of the exciting things happening in the NFT space. Obviously, "buyer beware" applies, but most people dismissing NFTs are missing a seismic shift in the art world, and photography is playing a bigger and bigger role.

Major auction houses are selling photography NFTs. Mona Kuhn recently sold out her Bushes and Succulents series, and secondary market prices have been climbing steadily. Drift's photography has generated millions of dollars in sales revenue.

Every day I see photographers selling work that ranges from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand, and more. A single sale to a recognized NFT collector can transform a photographer's entire body of work. Photographers are selling everything from landscapes to abstract, street photography, and nudes. Film and digital photography is selling.

I personally know three people that have become millionaires from buying the right NFTs, and you can easily find and follow hundreds of people on Twitter that are achieving unbelievable success. NFTs are transforming the lives of artists and collectors.

I 100% agree with everything you just said.

Twitter has been not only a great resource, but also great at getting involved with the community as a whole. It’s helped with a lot of my skepticism, but also I think conversations like this is a good thing because no matter what you think of it now, there is a seismic shift happening that we all should at least pay attention too.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
I personally know three people that have become millionaires from buying the right NFTs

and then reselling..for real cash money? like money you can spend on a sixer of Coor's lite at 7-11?

“NFTs are not the best way to support artists,” Jeremy Blake wrote. “NFTs exist to enrich cryptocurrency speculators. If you want to support artists, buy their music directly from a website like Bandcamp.” Left at London agreed, referring to the entire concept of crypto as a “scam.” “Because there’s less regulation in the market, there’s more room for bullshit like this to happen,”

goofus  wrote:
and then reselling..for real cash money? like money you can spend on a sixer of Coor's lite at 7-11?

Yes, they paid off student loans, bought houses (in one case for their parents too), and another bought a house and launched an NFT project/business that has already brought in millions of dollars in sales.

goofus  wrote:

and then reselling..for real cash money? like money you can spend on a sixer of Coor's lite at 7-11?

yes.

JQuest wrote:
I don't really have an opinion on NFTs other than they're not for me, however this article from Slate seems well written and touches on most of the complaints I've heard from artists..
This Is Not The Way To F-King Do It

This ....... really doesn't pass the critical thinking test from Jeremy Blake, Left at London and you. Nothing to be defensive over, just let's break it down:

- This is an article about a fraudulent marketplace. Those exist whether NFTs are there or not.
- Followed by these quotes that are unrelated and unsubstantiated: NFTS are not the best way to support artists... WHY?
- "NFTs exist to enrich cryptocurrency speculators." This is not an article about cryptocurrency speculators and where would that additional audience they buy those NFTs from if they were not plaigarized copies? ..... the artist!
- "buy their music directly from a website like Bandcamp" or from the artist releasing NFTs that have a potentially broader audience, willing to pay a higher price, and provide royalties to the artists from trades of the NFT. The article is saying "use this other broken model that barely anybody is making money from because to me thats "direct" in comparison to dealing with labels". NFTs are direct too. The standard is either equivalent or better, while being masqueraded as worse. Fascinating.
- “Because there’s less regulation in the market, there’s more room for bullshit like this to happen,” this beiinngg.... a frauduent marketplace? circular logic. The whole argument here is again because someone plagiarized a work, the MEDIUM must be the problem.  So what happens if you officially release your stuff on that medium.... all the articles posted in this thread don't even consider the outcome or don't even dive into that! Sorry for the abrasive terms but do you see how inept at seeing opportunities and sales that requires?

BRIAN D WILLIAMS wrote:
Has anyone been looking into it? I have a couple pieces I'm ready to mint on Rarible & OpenSea.

I am a fan of Paris Hilton.   Everyone knows she is wealthy, but the fact is that her famous grandfather disowned her because of her so called "sex tape" which was released by her ex-boyfriend.  If any of you know her life story, Paris did not have such a wonderful childhood, nor was she raised with the same privileges and million dollar loans that our former President had from his father.  Let me make this clear, Paris does not directly own any of the Hilton Hotels.  All the money she has made is from her own ingenuity.

At the start, Paris Hilton had only her name to work with.  That was enough for her to become the self made iconic business woman that she is today.  She turned the bad publicity from the early "sex tape" embarrassment into a blonde joke while launching her first reality tv show, The Simple Life ... for which she was the lead actress on.   Playing the "dumb blonde" may have made her the butt of many jokes, but she made money from that show.  It took off from there!

Today Paris is a well known media personality, socialite, businesswoman, model, singer, DJ, and actress. Many are critical of her abilities at these things, but she is successful none the less.  She earned her own fortune through a highly lucrative endorsement and product empire that is particularly popular overseas.  She has foreseen some of the very successful trends of the future before others. 

I am posting this comment about her on the NFT thread because Paris is going all in on NFT's.  She has invested her own money, and she is making her own creations as well as buying and selling NFT's.  She loves digital art!   This has caught my attention. 

In the past I have been notorious for being a day late, and dollar short.  I had a credit card billing platform back in 2005, that was at least as good as Paypal, but it took me so long to build that I missed the boat when our government changed the laws regarding online credit card billing so that they could put the brakes on teen age non nude modeling websites that were so popular back then (of which I was one of the CC processing providers)  as the fact is Ebay bought paypal for that very reason that they foresaw the changes. I did not have enough money to stay in the game, 

Ever since then I've been observing people like Paris to see what they are doing.  I would invest if I had the  money, but I've been struggling ever since the early 2000's with health issues, and a sibling who took advantage of me regarding our families estate.  I'm determined to recover.  I am watching this thread, and I am paying attention to what creative people and people with money are doing.  If you have the income to put at risk, I would not sleep on the fact that NFT's might be a worthwhile investment in the future.  We can keep being spectators or we can become investors. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … foundation

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/26/paris-h … verse.html

Patrick Walberg wrote:
We can keep being spectators or we can become investors.

Or creators.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
This ....... really doesn't pass the critical thinking test from Jeremy Blake, Left at London and you. Nothing to be defensive over, just let's break it down:

I'm not being defensive, I merely provided a link to an article about a discussion that's happening in this forum. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I get that you're all in on it and that's cool, however  I think you missed the point. The problem being pointed out  is that anyone who is tech savvy enough can steal any artists shit and NFT it which is apparently what Hitpoint did. Please explain to us all how the actual creator gets compensated for their work when that happens? What happens when the buyers of ripped off works find out they got ripped off and what they paid for isn't really connected to the creator? If the NFTs aren't reliably connected to the real creator people will stop buying. So yeah it's great when the creators make money for their work and fuck it's even greater when everyone gets paid and the buyer gets what they thought they bought, but it sucks when people that aren't you make money off your shit which is now worthless because it's been stolen, and apparently some of the platforms pushing this stuff don't really give a shit as long as they get paid. You seem pretty cavalier about the buyers getting ripped off (due diligence and all that) but there won't be any buyers if they're being ripped off. Like all financial instruments, if the buyers do not have confidence in it, it won't sell. So you can cheerlead NFTs as much as you want, and you should if you believe in them, but until basic questions regarding reliability and buyer/investor confidence can be assured, caveat emptor.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Or creators.

True. However, I do think of those of us who create as investing our time and efforts in participation.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:

Or creators.

100%

I'm definitely going in as a creator. My Genesis piece is done, working on a collection now. I'm also planing on having a large canvas print go to the first person to buy my NFT's but I'm still working out the infrastructure to make that a happen.

JQuest wrote:
....and I get that you're all in on it and that's cool, however  I think you missed the point. The problem being pointed out  is that anyone who is tech savvy enough can steal any artists shit and NFT it which is apparently what Hitpoint did. Please explain to us all how the actual creator gets compensated for their work when that happens? What happens when the buyers of ripped off works find out they got ripped off and what they paid for isn't really connected to the creator?


.....You seem pretty cavalier about the buyers getting ripped off (due diligence and all that) but there won't be any buyers if they're being ripped off. Like all financial instruments, if the buyers do not have confidence in it, it won't sell. .... caveat emptor.

Consumers shouldn't buy frauds. I'm not all in on it. Consumers have a ton of ways to determine and check if something is official, many just don't because there are sometimes other benefits of being early and fast. The artist does not get paid from a counterfeit, just like before NFTs, just like with NFTs, just like after NFTs. I'm correcting misinformation from what I view as extreme ignorance towards an extremely benign and easy to understand technology, I view that other people will eventually see it that way as well and will eventually laugh about how they confused and conflated irrelevant things for no reason. Yes, its common that the same people would misinterpret how much energy the messenger puts into that topic, at the earlier time.

Absolutely caveat emptor.

When the consumer market is hot, sell more product. There is literally no need to get married to a medium, including NFTs. Switch to the next thing when they stop buying that medium. So for the third time in this thread I get to ask the question: whose problem is it?

You: sell.
Buyers: buy.

Buyer gets cheated by a fraud: Buyer got scammed, you earn nothing.

Buyer looses confidence in the market because they cant discern: hope you already sold a buncha stuff before that happens!

see, easy.

Did that realllly need to be explained?

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Did that realllly need to be explained?

What photographers with little professional experience generally need explaining is that developing an audience is the challenge and that another type of media is not a solution for that. I view NFTs as just another horse in the race to monetize creative content. In this new century we have already seen a rush to create individual pay-sites, then a rush to individual apps, followed by a rush to become a paid influencer and more recently a rush to monetize a subscription following (Patreon/OnlyFans) and now this. Those that have been successful have generally developed an audience in another arena and brought them over to monetized mediums.

It doesn't do anything to solve the problem of building an audience. I would argue that having a problematic medium is actually a problem for creators. Participating in any market has an opportunity cost. I personally don't see NFTs as a long-term benefit to creators. Weren't people trying to monetize their Vine followers not too long ago? Can you even remember Quibi? They had major tech and Hollywood backing. I think it is entirely possible that NFTs are the Vine of 2022, but hey, if you want to spend the time putting poor to average images up on OpenSea and hold your breath, go for it.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Did that realllly need to be explained?

Your snark aside, and again missing the point. If bad actors continue to offer pillaged and plagiarized works as NFTs and buyers continue to be scammed it doesn't matter if you are personally doing everything right. NFTs will become (or remain) known as risky investments and buyers will go elsewhere. Could NFTs be a great thing for the creative community? Possibly, could they be relegated to the dust bin of failed tech offerings? Possibly. Time will tell, however because you fail to acknowledge that there are problems in the marketing and selling of NFTs doesn't mean they aren't there, and trying to portray everyone who offers up evidence that portrays an opinion differing from yours as ignorant is counter to actually having a meaningful discussion.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

True. However, I do think of those of us who create as investing our time and efforts in participation.

In the NFT space, I think the line between creator and collector isn't well defined. Most creators are also collectors. It's very much a community and you'll see many artists supporting each other, often by purchasing and promoting work by different artists.

Being part of the wider crypto community can really help too. It's definitely a rabbit hole but the rewards are there if you're willing to dive into it.

Dan Howell wrote:
What photographers with little professional experience generally need explaining is that developing an audience is the challenge and that another type of media is not a solution for that. I view NFTs as just another horse in the race to monetize creative content. In this new century we have already seen a rush to create individual pay-sites, then a rush to individual apps, followed by a rush to become a paid influencer and more recently a rush to monetize a subscription following (Patreon/OnlyFans) and now this. Those that have been successful have generally developed an audience in another arena and brought them over to monetized mediums.

It doesn't do anything to solve the problem of building an audience. I would argue that having a problematic medium is actually a problem for creators. Participating in any market has an opportunity cost. I personally don't see NFTs as a long-term benefit to creators. Weren't people trying to monetize their Vine followers not too long ago? Can you even remember Quibi? They had major tech and Hollywood backing. I think it is entirely possible that NFTs are the Vine of 2022, but hey, if you want to spend the time putting poor to average images up on OpenSea and hold your breath, go for it.

This I agree with, you're right that I don't care about whether they have staying power or not, it wasn't a factor in my responses or whether I have interest in them or not. Even those questions seem unrelated to the plagiarism articles but I'm glad this discussion has become more nuanced now.

I'm a "market is hot, sell now" person, and in this market if you are sitting on an idea for a whole quarter then you might miss it!

if market exists, sell in market. Very simple formula for me.

Consumer is market is hot? Create and sell product.
Stock market is hot? Create/Issue and sell shares.
Credit market is hot? Create/Issue and sell bonds.

Rinse, repeat.

One unique aspect of the NFT space I've seen is that completely new audiences are not hard to form. There is an art to it! Just creating something on OpenSea or another marketplace is definitely going to get you ignored unless you have a massive audience already. But launching something as a completely new artist, and showing competence in the NFT communities  with your own minting and web3 enabled website will easily garner an audience.

JQuest wrote:
Your snark aside, and again missing the point. If bad actors continue to offer pillaged and plagiarized works as NFTs and buyers continue to be scammed it doesn't matter if you are personally doing everything right. NFTs will become (or remain) known as risky investments and buyers will go elsewhere. Could NFTs be a great thing for the creative community? Possibly, could they be relegated to the dust bin of failed tech offerings? Possibly. Time will tell, however because you fail to acknowledge that there are problems in the marketing and selling of NFTs doesn't mean they aren't there, and trying to portray everyone who offers up evidence that portrays an opinion differing from yours as ignorant is counter to actually having a meaningful discussion.

Ah, then you should have led with those questions!

The only reason I "fail to acknowledge" problems is because I don't care and I don't find them to be roadblocks in any bit. They're not problems in creating and selling. Even the plagiarism articles are saying "wow it all sold" which for us translates to "the creator collected all the moneys".

The only way we are far apart is by me choosing to have a laser focus on selling where its hot.

Look at this thread, all the photographers in Los Angeles are on top of this and everyone else is putting up artificial self-limiting barriers, whats going on here? Hmm. Well in true entertainment industry fashion, we're going to shove these experiences down people's throats and they're going to like it, like a reboot of the same superhero movie 2 years later.

Could NFTs be a great thing for the creative community? Possibly, could they be relegated to the dust bin of failed tech offerings? Possibly.

Not even a factor for me! I don't think its a factor for any of you all, we already have content. The barrier to entry is super low.

If these were the questions underlying the prior stuff that was written, thats what should have been said.
Sell things to people before that market dries up, or becomes oversaturated, or anything.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
True. However, I do think of those of us who create as investing our time and efforts in participation.

Good point. A part of me had wondered if time and participation is what you meant or were including as investing. I had then wanted to make it clear to others who might not be inspired as much to see the creation angle.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
The only reason I "fail to acknowledge" problems is because I don't care and I don't find them to be roadblocks in any bit. They're not problems in creating and selling. Even the plagiarism articles are saying "wow it all sold".

Yeah, focus on what you can control. If you're selling on OpenSea it's easy to connect your social profiles, website, etc. Make it easy for collectors to verify they're buying from you. If you're fortunate enough to get approved or invited to sell via SuperRare, Foundation, etc. you're essentially vetted for collectors.

OpenSea was forecast to have their best sales month in January, surpassing the $3.4 billion in sales from last August, and they have even looked into an IPO. Regulators, law enforcement, and IP lawyers are heavily involved in the space. The legal framework is still evolving but these are huge companies generating billions of dollars in revenue that have to comply with the law.

Most of the issues are related to typical online scams - phishing, weak passwords, misunderstanding/misusing technology, etc. But, as has already been said, if you're primarily an artist/seller, that's not really a concern if you do your research.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:

Good point. A part of me had wondered if time and participation is what you meant or were including as investing. I had then wanted to make it clear to others who might not be inspired as much to see the creation angle.

Yes, time is an investment, be it in creating, researching and then collecting.  Many are both creators and collectors.  I made a long comment regarding Paris Hilton because she is one of the early investors in bitcoin, and also in NFT's.   She both a collector and a creator of NFT's.  Time is an investment regardless if you take the time to learn how to create an NFT or spend time researching as to what to buy.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
In the NFT space, I think the line between creator and collector isn't well defined. Most creators are also collectors. It's very much a community and you'll see many artists supporting each other, often by purchasing and promoting work by different artists.

Being part of the wider crypto community can really help too. It's definitely a rabbit hole but the rewards are there if you're willing to dive into it.

I am happy to follow this discussion as it is not clear to me as to how NFT's can benefit me to create or collect as of yet.  Many like Paris Hilton are collectors and creators.  She is also invested in the crypto community. 

What brought me here more than anything else is my recent interest in NFT Galleries.   That is a whole other challenge to being an NFT collector! 
More links for thiese: 

https://www.businessinsider.com/nft-art … la-2021-11

https://www.smudailycampus.com/sponsore … ft-gallery

https://decrypt.co/83319/cryptopunks-ge … aying-nfts

https://yaliyomo.net/artist-and-art-galleries-nfts

Maybe some of the above links might be helpful to some of you here?