zlacker

>>nemoni+(OP)
It's astonishing to me that people will just buy into any success story that involves crypto and NFTs. People don't question why poorly drawn pictures are being bought for thousands of dollars, don't question why there are hundreds of altcoins on the market and some "cryptocurrency experts" are supposedly "offering free tips" on investment. The whole space is rife with scams and embellishments and yet there are so many people just blindly buying into it, including the damn BBC!

>>WilTim+o2
Every person I've spoken to who's told me they're interested in crypto literally only care about it to make money, and have no interest in learning how it works. They all treat every last crypto-based use as investment like stocks, and not as a normal economic choice (e.g. "I want $3000 worth of bitcoin to buy a car" is not something people are doing, instead it's all "I want $3000 worth of bitcoin because the internet told me it'll be 3 million in a year").

NFTs also annoy me because it's literally the worst part of art industry - "buying" the "rights" to a piece of art so you can turn it for more cash later on, and not as an appreciation of the work. Bored Apes might be one of the few exceptions where people are doing it for "bragging rights", which is infinitely better because you're buying it to say you own it, much closer to normal art purchases.

>>luckya+Y4
Your not buying the rights, that's the most annoying thing about NFTs, that people don't get.

>>captai+l8
I looked this up the other day and I might be wrong but it seems like in most jurisdictions even if you buy a meatspace piece of art you do not own the actual copyright on the work.

While I’m not a fan of NFTs this does somewhat weaken the proposition that any “rights” cannot be sold with NFTs because IIRC this is the status quo in meatspace art purchases too.

>>nsomar+S9
There are no rights to Bored Ape works. They are algorithmically generated so they are public domain.

>>fnord1+Og
I am aware of the legal discussions around the hypotheticals, but has that actually been tested in court?

Define algorithmically generated? There are certainly tools for randomizing the mix of image elements that are present in a piece of art, and combining them, but does that only apply if I used a computer to do it? What if I draw 300 reference images, photocopy them, cut them out, and sit down with a set of dice and tables, and make collages using glue?

Does the inclusion of random noise as a processing step in creating digital art count as algorithmically generated?

What if I use a custom programmed brush that simulates the randomness of physical brush bristles to simulate in a digital painting?

>>ygjb+Wj
The US Copyright Office notes that "Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.", and lists in its examples:

> A claim based on a mechanical weaving process that randomly produces irregular shapes in the fabric without any discernible pattern.

That is so specific that I have to believe there was a court case where someone attempted to claim copyright for that kind of process.

But to answer your question to define algorithmically generated, the requirement is that “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.”

(Citation to: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-..., see §313.2).