|
He's fully gone down the NFT rabbit hole. His pinned tweet is about a 4/20 Pizza NFT He's also now claiming to be working together with DarkWing to figure this whole thing out. Bonus points that scammers are now targeting his tweets https://twitter.com/SethGreen/status/1531267333116743680?s=20&t=bjwREybX1vT-5U2yXtJtAQ
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
smellmycheese posted:Seth Green here explaining how it all works to dummies who don’t get it and think his stupid ape cartoon show is Bullshit yeah imagine, 'cuz the only place any of this poo poo is happening is in your imagination buying an NFT grants you the rights to exactly jack poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
It is never not funny to me when a coiner/nft freak describes their discord group of sweaty grifters and marks as “a community”
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
can't wait to buy the nft of some minor character that has 1 line per episode and use it to block new distribution and reruns
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
priznat posted:It is never not funny to me when a coiner/nft freak describes their discord group of sweaty grifters and marks as “a community” Just makes me think of Dan Olson's video where he actually joins a few Discords for cryptocurrencies and... it's basically exactly what you'd expect.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
please do not put papa smurf in the jar
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Foo Diddley posted:buying an NFT grants you the rights to exactly jack poo poo not in general, but the bored apes do have a license that explicitly grants holders the right to use it for whatever although in practice that doesn't work because the bored apes are mostly only distinguished by background colour, facial expression or clothes, so as soon as you do anything with your "character" its likely to turn into someone else's ape that you don't have the rights to
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Yeah imagine if you could tell stories about the Smurfs on your own, and get them out to a wide audience. You could even do it with cheap stop-motion animation if you liked.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
repiv posted:not in general, but the bored apes do have a license that explicitly grants holders the right to use it for whatever My understanding is that it's not clear at all if that license transfers between owners. Something to do with contracts only being between the signatory parties, which means that a third person down the road isn't bound by them. So if I bought a bored ape from whoever makes bored apes, that contract is between us, but then if I resell it to you I'm not necessarially giving you those rights. You could be in a situation where you own the NFT, but I still own the rights. Of course we could write up another contract that transferred them but that's not exactly on the blockchain. here's the actual agreement, highlighting from whatever twitter rando had it when I googled it:  Whether or not those terms apply to re-sales is a huge  but current contract law - again, in my understanding, not a lawyer - seems to say no.Also in the real world theft doesn't confer ownership. So even if Darkwingwhatever has Green's NFT in his possession, as far as the law is concerned Green is still the owner. Which means according the terms of the above he still has the rights. That doesn't even get into what happens if the NFT gets trasfered around to some other parties after the theft. PLENTY of real life stolen art cases have involved sales being un-wound decades after the fact, even if the art passed between many people's hands in good faith. Lots of art stolen by the Nazis that ended up back in the hands of a descendent of the victim even though lots of money changed hands via that painting in the intervening decades, as one obvious example. It's just so dumb on so many levels. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:17 on May 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
I'd love to know what the actual terms of the "smart contract" that that thing says mediates ownership of the apes is. In tons of this crypto poo poo you'll see a handwave to something like that and then when you dig the thing that it's referencing is pretty much smoke and mirrors.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'd love to know what the actual terms of the "smart contract" that that thing says mediates ownership of the apes is. I would assume it's the code that defines it as an NFT that basically says "this wallet -> ownership". So yeah, you can probably track that, but I don't see the point of doing so. I'm no lawyer either, but pretty sure there is zero licensing for commercial use in here. Just "you can use it noncommercially or sell it on opensea or list it in a gallery/vr gallery" is pretty much the use cases I'm reading from what they're "providing".
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
So is the show just a cafe or series of boring sets with some actors there to interact with the "main character" cartoons whose dialog and escapades are determined by the highest bidder? Can't he just, like, buy another ape for his show (lol who's the stupid monkey now)?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:I'm no lawyer either, but pretty sure there is zero licensing for commercial use in here. Just "you can use it noncommercially or sell it on opensea or list it in a gallery/vr gallery" is pretty much the use cases I'm reading from what they're "providing". there's another section after that screenshot that covers commercial use quote:iii. Commercial Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”). Examples of such Commercial Use would e.g. be the use of the Art to produce and sell merchandise products (T-Shirts etc.) displaying copies of the Art. For the sake of clarity, nothing in this Section will be deemed to restrict you from (i) owning or operating a marketplace that permits the use and sale of Bored Apes generally, provided that the marketplace cryptographically verifies eachBored Ape owner’s rights to display the Art for their Bored Ape to ensure that only the actual owner can display the Art; (ii) owning or operating a third party website or application that permits the inclusion, involvement, or participation of Bored Apes generally, provided that the third party website or application cryptographically verifies each Bored Ape owner’s rights to display the Art for theirBored Ape to ensure that only the actual owner can display the Art, and provided that the Art is no longer visible once the owner of the Purchased Bored Ape leaves the website/application; or (iii) earning revenue from any of the foregoing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'd love to know what the actual terms of the "smart contract" that that thing says mediates ownership of the apes is. Ok, I bothered to google this. Here is some code-knower breaking down the BAYC smart contract. From my not-code-knowing perusal and that person's commentary it doesn't seem like the smart contract references the ape at all. Not directly, at least. You'll see what I mean below. Note that the terms above say that "ownership of the NFT" is mediated by the smart contract. The smart contract is all about (as I understand it) assigning and transferring ownership of the NFT. Ok but what about the ape? The NFT is just a container after all. Ok but then there's this, following a bunch of code chat:  Uh, lol? So . . . the provenance of the piece of art - that thing that all this is supposed to hang on - can be hosed with at any time? Well at least we know that the actual image is secure and can't be changed.   Oh my. There is not a  in the world big enough. So, yeah, the smart contract that mediates ownership of the NFT just transfers ownership of the NFT, and the NFT directs to a website and the people who control that website can change the URL to loving goatse if they want to. Which means that if we assume that initial write up I posted of the agreement that says that you 100% own your ape is an actual, legal contract then it's only between BAYC and the initial buyer. Any subsequent buyer is getting an NFT which mediates ownership of . . . the NFT, so it's self-referential. And ultimately it's just a container for whatever the gently caress the original people who made the ugly apes decide to put on their server. tl;dr - assuming Green bought his ape directly from the creators he's certainly the owner of an ugly loving JPEG and he almost certainly still has the rights to it and can make whatever gently caress awful show he wants starring his nasty as poo poo simian. But anyone who's bought an ape second or third hand owns . . . the NFT. And that's loving it. And note that "the NFT" and "the Ape" are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Whether or not those terms apply to re-sales is a huge
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Add to this the wrinkle that procedurally generated art has been ruled as something that can't be copyrighted in the past. So it's entirely possible that none of this matters because these rights were never legally owned by anyone in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
priznat posted:It is never not funny to me when a coiner/nft freak describes their discord group of sweaty grifters and marks as “a community” lets just call it what it is at this point: findom.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Add to this the wrinkle that procedurally generated art has been ruled as something that can't be copyrighted in the past. So it's entirely possible that none of this matters because these rights were never legally owned by anyone in the first place. i think there's a distinction between art that's wholly generated by a neural network or algorithm, and art that's composed of human-authored pieces randomly assembled together in the latter case the pieces should be copyrightable, and the assembled images would be a derivative work, i think? seems like the legality of this stuff is mostly hypothetical and hasn't been hashed out in court yet repiv fucked around with this message at 17:57 on May 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
I think the best part of the whole Seth NFT poo poo is: Seth LITERALLY produced a show that uses Satire/Parody to allow him to use IP he doesn't own and is now arguing that IP should be so strictly, granularly controlled via NFT to make the very art form he perfected impossible by making the IP rights so granular to allow theft or sale of the IP to control all appearances of said IP.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
repiv posted:seems like the legality of this stuff is mostly hypothetical and hasn't been hashed out in court yet Yes, and basically no judges understand anything about technology, so get ready for some major confusion.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:i also anal, but it seems obvious to me that folks like BAYC want everyone to be confused on this point. I am confused by this typo and/or non-sequitur.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
IANAL = I am not a lawyer
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
stop crushing my dreams dad
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:i also anal Seth Green posted:Imagine exploiting the Smurfs
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
repiv posted:i think there's a distinction between art that's wholly generated by a neural network or algorithm, and art that's composed of human-authored pieces randomly assembled together The legality of copyrighting procedurally generated art has been brought to court before, and works out pretty much like what you're thinking. If there's any human creative involvement at all, such as providing the pieces and defining rules for how they fit together, then the procedural generation is just a tool, and the copyright belongs to the human who configured and operated it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:lets just call it what it is at this point: findom. get this: findumb
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The thing that makes me genuinely tip my hat is that they figured out a way to make bored apes uglier with their melty apes. this is what happens when you use discount slurp juice and not official BAYC premium slurp juice
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
More like finsub
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
remember when OG slurp juices contained taurine, guarana, caffeine and alcohol?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
the real OG slurp had cocaine in it, no one's recreated that post nasal drip since. UNTIL NOW WITH NFTs move aside E-Drugs NFT Drugs are HERE!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
I'm gonna sell people the recipe to make some illegal drug and tell them the NFT gives them legal rights to manufacture said drug and if they get questioned by law enforcement, show them your crypto wallet.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Smurf exploitation was thoroughly covered by Donnie Darko a couple decades ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qACNqaEkHmE Wish the original filmmaker had held on to the rights of this IP because boy did the sequel suck poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
There's a legal concept called privity that says you cannot be bound to a contract if you're a third party to the original contractors. However, it's a little ambiguous here since BAYC is the one being bound by its own terms; there's a good argument that while you can't make the purchaser of good faith be bound to a TOS that they were never originally a part (and first sale doctrine tends to extinguish those sort of obligations anyway), the burden is on BAYC to provide a license by its own terms to whomever fulfills its definition of ownership. So a purchaser can say it was a reasonable reliance on these heavily advertised terms that give the NFT "value" and while BAYC might not actually have a contract with the purchaser in the strict sense, there's a legal obligation to permit it the things the TOS allows, probably on a promissory estoppel theory.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
Has "Handy" Smurf been bought yet?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
I'd bet  that Seth Green got into all this poo poo through Mila Kunis. She made a couple million off early crypto and is an evangelist. Like literally bringing it every interview she can.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Goddamit Meg.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I'd bet Aw man she seemed so likable.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:There's a legal concept called privity that says you cannot be bound to a contract if you're a third party to the original contractors. However, it's a little ambiguous here since BAYC is the one being bound by its own terms; there's a good argument that while you can't make the purchaser of good faith be bound to a TOS that they were never originally a part (and first sale doctrine tends to extinguish those sort of obligations anyway), the burden is on BAYC to provide a license by its own terms to whomever fulfills its definition of ownership. So a purchaser can say it was a reasonable reliance on these heavily advertised terms that give the NFT "value" and while BAYC might not actually have a contract with the purchaser in the strict sense, there's a legal obligation to permit it the things the TOS allows, probably on a promissory estoppel theory. I don't know if any of this is true but you have an Edgeworth avatar so I believe you
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
https://sequentialpulp.ca/2022/05/31/tcaf-rescinds-invitation-to-pink-cat/ Here’s a fun one. Toronto Comic Arts festival invited an NFT scammer to be their featured guest, then promptly uninvited them after community backlash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2022 02:15
|
|
