![]() Counterintuitively, by allowing more ready access to participate financially, creative commons zero becomes more lucrative. This, of course, would only be practically possible if you could create spin-offs at all. In some instances, it’s currently possible (eg, if you own Disney stock and create a good Star Wars spin-off). Comparatively, this would be like the ability to earn from the sales of Harry Potter wands if you successfully create a derivative Harry Potter story. If the derivative creator owns NFTs of the original work, they can earn twice. With NFTs, there’s a stronger value alignment for positive incentives because: the derivative creator can now earn upside not just from their derivative work, but also from the success they send upstream to the original. These incentives still exist for derivative works using NFTs with traditional copyright, but, the alignment becomes stronger if the original creators allows for free commercialisation of the IP. Poor derivative works can also cause negative outcomes for the original creator. For the original creator, allowing derivatives also means they are okay with losing control over both potential revenue and creative control. ![]() Historically, derivative work creators would usually have to be content with 1) not being able to commercialise the derivative IP, and 2) not being able to own any upside they send upstream (derivative works send attention upstream into potential revenue streams for the original creator). This entire engine of legitimacy building towards ownership of signed cultural objects also empowers derivative works. It’s a focal point engine that keeps and embeds social relationships through time towards cultural objects. Much of the value is derived because it is a blessing of legitimacy through timestamped cryptographic signatures from specific people: it’s all about “ the signature”. While the image itself is (usually) immutably codified and adds a large proportion of desirability, it’s also very important as to who “signed off” on the NFT. There are various ‘signals’ that are codified such that it makes it desirable to own even though the token is separate from the reference. The value is derived from what the NFT represents and the immutable timestamping engine of the blockchain helps to legitimise a specific reference. The owner is not allowed to use the referenced image in any other way, particularly not commercially. This usually restricts the NFT holder to only being able to enjoy the ownership of the reference. ![]() In many cases, copyright is retained by the original creator regardless of what happens to the NFT. Owning the NFT is separate from the copyright of the referenced image. Would the Loot community be willing to host the Dope Wars Loot in the Loot Forum? The community is doing some awesome things, and would be nice to have a home in the Loot community.An NFT references a canonical interpretation: eg, regularly, a link to a file or some on-chain image. This means Dope Wars Loot is a governance token in and of itself and projects building on it can always query exactly how many Loot anyone had at any point in time. We removed the Loot NFT and instead used the NounsDAO Voting NFT. A lot of people collaborated to make the loot. The Dope Wars Loot was written by the community in a word doc in a discord. That means I, being the deployer of a derivative, didn’t do it for personal gain. I removed the owner’s ability (in Loot) to mint a couple of hundred extra loot. The first derivative, of Loot, and actually a reasonably different project.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |