Not even photoshopped, that would be too much effort. Nah, the most infamous NFTs are a few different elements (different mouths, eyes, accessories, etc) and then a whole bunch of permutations generated from those elements. For a technology with a supposed selling point of scarcity, you’d think they’d try to make the art special instead of procedurally-generated trash, but of course the real purposes were scams and money laundering.
No, because with art, there’s still a literal piece of art.
With NFTs, it’s just a shitty jpeg some tech bro photoshopped up in five minutes.
hark@lemmy.world 1 year ago
nbafantest@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Actually you’re still a bit overestimating it.
Most NFT’s are literally just hyperlinks, where the hyperlink could suffer link rot and stop working OR the image on the other side of the hyperlink could be changed.
uid0gid0@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And as LegalEagle had pointed out “You can’t own that”
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yea, it’s truly amazing anyone fell for those stupid things… Sooo little effort was supposed to magically generate real valje!? Give me a break… It was sooo obviously just a way to get people to pool money in an unsafe way so it could be pocketed.
Who ever donated to those scams didn’t deserve the money, as much as their losses are still a tragedy. Still, the scammers deserve that money even less.
BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What about regular digital art?
Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 1 year ago
…is not an NFT
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It is art and doesn’t need NFTs to give it value. People comission digital pieces all the time and don’t need NFTs to get it done.
yata@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
With NFTs there aren’t even any art. The NFT is a receipt for the art, not the art itself.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I mean, there are ways to tie them together, though the point still stands that NFTs add nothing to art. Copyright works fine without an overly complicated digital receipt.