* Special announcement *
Project @GenerativeFish is shutting down effective immediately.
We offer our deepest apologies to @LingdongH and anyone else who have felt slighted due to this project.
For details, here's a thread.
To @LingDongH, we are sorry. We really like you work. Please do not feel bad or discouraged and please keep on creating.
And thank you for being so generous with sharing your wonderful talents with the world.
So long and thanks for all the fish!
@dlivingstone@epredator@GenerativeFish@mattereum Let THEM decide if they want to participate in an energy inefficient PoW-based NFT, a more efficient PoS, PoH or node-based solution, or maybe some solution exclusively leveraging solar and wind power.
Demonizing everything only ensures those who might benefit, won't.
@dlivingstone@epredator@GenerativeFish@mattereum And maybe I can buy another piece for US$100 and perhaps sell it at Sotheby's or license it to an ad agency; none of the proceeds going back to the artist.
You do know under the current system an artist rarely benefits from resale of the work, yes?
Smart contract NFT's do that.
@dlivingstone@epredator@GenerativeFish@mattereum So many intangibles are represented by ... metadata.
NFTs are poised to take over real estate; efficiently bundling documents that currently represent ownership of a piece of Earth; an idea lost on the original indigenous population of North America.
Is a deed worthless?
@epredator How was it a con?
Did @GenerativeFish misrepresent what they were providing? Care to share?
The original code was freely released as a Do What You Want license on Github.
Are we now saying open source code with a full permissions license *isn't* actually full permissions?
@epredator Now if the core issue is that the "art" is *generative*, that's an issue that's STILL being discussed in art/design circles. I first encountered it almost 20 years ago on the Core77 forums.
But that particular NFT is a special case and shouldn't stand in for non-generative NFTs.
@epredator If I'm not mistaken, the original code was open source; posted on Github with a Create license to do what you please with the code.
If true, how is that "ripping off"?
And how is this different than what others have done (e.g. MakerBot monetizing a snapshot of RepRap)?
@purge88@LingdongH@GenerativeFish Also ask yourself: if you write text with the Microsoft Word text processor, to whom does the text belong? Microsoft? So why should the output of the fish generator belong to the author of the fish generator?
* Special announcement *
Project @GenerativeFish is shutting down effective immediately.
We offer our deepest apologies to @LingdongH and anyone else who have felt slighted due to this project.
For details, here's a thread.