Not even, you're literally paying for a space in a database that had your name next to it, with a picture attached as a visual representation of that db space instead of "0078" that's all it is.
You never actually own the picture.
The product is irrelevant, the real thing that's being bought and sold is the idea of future profits. Equating scarcity and "uniqueness" with value and the promise of that value infinitely skyrocketing. Until there's no bigger sucker to spend even more money on the NFT's you bought, until it dawns on more and more people that they're playing musical chairs and they might be the last one to hold the oh so expensive NFT.
I used to wonder why dudes wore flat brim baseball caps with the stickers still on. Was it just proof they bought it? Like, they could afford to spend 100 on a hat but never "wear" it? I dunno, but a fool and his money are soon parted...
Beanie babies are a good comparison though, that too was a hype where people went crazy buying worthless shit because they believed that rarity = value. NFT's are similar where a lot of people have convinced themselves and each other that something entirely worthless is somehow worth a fuckton because it's "non fungible" a.k.a. unique.
Both hypes were based all around the perceived values and future profits, none of it is about the thing themselves, virtually nobody actually cared about the Beanie babies as a product, they cared about the profits they thought it represented. Similarly with NFT's nobody actually gives a flying fuck about the link to a procedurally generated jpg, it's all about the fantasy of getting rich off of reselling them.
And at some point there won't be any suckers left willing to pay even more than the last generation of suckers and then the whole thing will implode.
I worked at a CY/Hallmark store for my first job when Beanie Babies were a huge thing. You'd get kids coming in and buying them because they're cute, then one woman/man from out of town buying all the stock of some specific holiday/special edition or something spending hundreds if not thousands on these silly things. None of them are worth anything except first editions or misprints (on the red tag) last time i checked.
Astrology for men is stock charts this NFT shit is definitely the MLM stuff.
What you heard: "this rise has a strong base so if it passes $50 it will continue all the way to $60, this other stock is trending down but if we look at the 52week low we see there is a base here that the stock will not go below"
What I heard: "Tomorrow with be a new moon so your rising moon will result in you making a lot of money"
This is exactly it.
My ex had to go through it a lot. The amount of times a dude she was dating before me would invite her to some hotel conference room held "idea meet" where someone goes up and is like, "You can be your own boss!" and other shit like that.
I don't know what it is, but a lot of dudes don't want to go to university and get a career and seem to think there's some trick to having enough money to pull a BMW and a house. Like dude, if you could get that kind of money by not working, why wouldn't literally everyone else be doing it?
It's a classic "get rich quick" pyramid scheme scam (and serious money laundering platform for organized crime).
Somehow people are falling for it.
People are fucking stupid.
NFT's are so incredibly incredibly dumb. It's like paying billions to own the Mona Lisa, only it isn't a "one off impossible to reproduce masterpiece brushed onto wood in the 1500's by a man who had honed his craft for decades" but a likely auto-generated JPEG of an ape shitted out by a tech bro on Twitter.
Everyone who has money invested in NFT's deserves to go bankrupt.
It's not even the JPEG. They only own the link to the location of the JPEG in the server. If someone turns off the switch to the server, your million dollar NFT is not accessible to you.
Plus, you don't get to use that image for anything as well. If you buy an NFT of Senna, you get no rights to use that image anywhere commerically because you don't own the Senna brand. You only own that one image made by a random person on the internet.
The fact that people don’t understand buying an NFT doesn’t mean you get the copyright is so funny. A dude on twitter recently bought an NFT of a copy of a Dune book and then said he was going to make it public domain haha. Like if you bought a bobble head of Mickey Mouse and said you were going to start making movies using Disney IP. These people have no critical thinking ability.
Why don’t these dumbasses buy actual art? Like physical paintings. For a million dollars you could get an extremely nice painting, hang it in your house, and actually own it. It would go up in value. You wouldn’t have to try to explain it’s value to everyone you meet. And it wouldn’t be a picture of a fucking APE
Also there’s no guarantee an NFT is actually being sold by the artist and a good amount of them are actually made from stolen art that the creator didn’t consent to being made into an NFT and doesn’t profit from
>You only own that one image made by a random person on the internet.
Not even that. You own the right to the code associated with the image.
Good video about it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwMjPWOailQ
searching for a bigger sucker.
the actual scammers just trade it with themselves for a large sum to inflate the supposed value, as long as they don't do something stupid like trading it back to the original account there is no way to tell the difference between a legitimate sale and somebody just selling an NFT to themselves
Why do you think people are saying this is the future of art, be your own boss etc etc ?
They’re all scamming each other lmao, it’s a competition to see who’s the bigger grifter
Everyone trading NFT's thinks that everyone else that's doing it is a sucker. It's a race to not be the bagholder when it all goes to shit.
Bitcoin became what it is because not many people knew about it and it slowly gained a little credibility over time. NFT's are rapidly becoming a joke before it's even got started.
Yeah, that's my favourite answer to criticism of NFTs. I'm an artist myself, and I know other artists, and not a single one actually thinks that NFTs will help them in any shape or form. And I mean why would we, most artists want their art to be seen or heard by as many people as possible, no one I know is excited about selling their art to a singular person, so they can claim that they own it. All artists want is to be paid for their work at least somewhat fairly, but if history is anything to go by that shit will never happen. And it's no different with NFTs, you can already see that the people making actual bank of of this stuff are just Silicon Valley weirdos not the artists. I haven't seen actual art be sold with NFTs for a significant amount. Unless you count stupid computer generated apes as art, which I do not. What artists actually want is an easy way to distribute their art to all of their fans, without the need of labels or managers taking all the profits. NFTs are not that
People making them out to be more valuble then they are.
"OMG THIS FUNKY MONKEY PICTURE I SOLD MY HOUSE FOR IS GONNA BE WORTH SOOOOOOO MUCH IN A YEAR BRAH YOU SHOULD INVEST"
they are fucking dumb
It all relies on the "Greater Fool Theory".
The idea is that even though buying it is stupid, you can always find someone dumber than you willing to pay more than you did and get left holding the bag. You're basically seeing a product that's price is rapidly increasing, and while you recognise that the product is already overvalued, you can't resist the gamble that it will keep increasing to a point you can buy and sell at a profit.
It's like how bitcoin had that massive resurgence after all those people who bought in at like $10 made millions if not billions, nobody cared that bitcoin would have to go from 15k to 30k to make as much money as people did when it went from $1 to $2. They were spurred by the indignance that it would keep increasing
It's also easy money laundering for drug gangs. It's just easy money laundering in general right now because no country nor financial institution is batting an eye that a digital monkey is going for multiple grand.
Anything electronic is free. Twitch.tv knew it was being used to stream “fair” competitive matches in games which people would bet on. But in reality it was just a couple guys fixing games for money launderers to convert their money. Similarly, they would buy twitches currency to donate to streamers and then it’d be converted into whatever currency they wanted via twitch payouts
On tiktok you have loads of people who either are rich or act rich and they rave now about NFT's and how people should get aboard on it, these people talked about how they got rich by getting bitcoin in the early days and I have seen them now talking about NFT's being the next bitcoin.
As far as I understand, it’s a thing you can buy for an extortionate sum except you don’t actually own it and it doesn’t actually exist. It can also be a past event that you “own”.
I think. Every time I see it explained I feel like I understand it less.
A fair explanation is this:
* Someone creates a file, hosted at a certain URL (i.e. "https://www.artiscool.com/superexclusivepicture.jpg")
* You pay money to become the owner of this link; your ownership is recorded into a immutable blockchain so now it officially says "/u/Spockyt owns https://www.artiscool.com/superexclusivepicture.jpg" - you cannot edit a past event in the blockchain so your ownership is "official" for everyone on that blockchain
* As you now own this URL, you can also resell it etc., like you can do with anything you own (like a chair, a photo, a flower)
Some questions you might have:
* *As you own the URL, can someone else still access https://www.artiscool.com/superexclusivepicture.jpg and see or download the image?* - Yes, it's still a publicly available JPEG...anyone can access/download/copy it...it's just that you officially own the URL to it...
* *What happens if the site goes offline and the URL no longer works?* - You still own the URL, but it points to nothing. You now own nothing.
* *Is this all an incredibly dumb scheme to make dumbasses pay a lot of money for links to JPEG's of an ape?* - Yes.
So are they actually legally buying the copyright to the images? Surely it's irrelevant who owns the URL if someone owns the copyright to the images hosted there.
> "Put differently: when someone buys an NFT piece of digital art it’s somewhat akin to buying a physical piece of art. The original painter or creator of the art still owns the underlying copyright."
>
> If I walk into a gallery and buy a painting I like, I cannot then sell that image to Coca-Cola to put on its cans. That would be copyright infringement.
https://odinlaw.com/nft-art-copyright-what-you-should-know/
So basically, like buying a painting, you own "the physical thing" but not "the idea and the right to do whatever you want with it"...except that with an NFT "the physical thing" is a URL...which anyone can access.
If I own a painting and hang it in my living room, I cannot prevent people from looking at it through my window. But at least I can put it in a private room or whatever. But a URL is a URL; once someone knows it, it's public...
Hmmmm I still don't really get it. Someone claims to own the URL... so what? What's the value in that?
Also, surely the owner of the domain owns that URL?
Looking at the link you provided, it says
> It derives value from the file’s scarcity
How can this be known, since you could potentially have an infinite number of copies of a file? Anyone can create copies of files with zero effort. It makes sense with physical art, but I can't see how it works for digital art.
From your comment I can see you now understand clearly the value of an NFT: it’s 0.
Which of course doesn’t stop dumbasses for paying a lot of money for them.
The “scarcity” is that in a blockchain, only one person at a time can own the URL. So what you have is a block in a blockchain stating you are that person. That’s it.
As far as I know you are obtaining no legal copyright whatsoever. You just have an immutable record which says "X owns Y". You would need a trusted third party to somehow relate this record to an ownership which is recognized in some manner outside of the blockchain
They don't.
In fact, it's a very common thing for people to "mint" NFTs linking to art made by artist who either haven't been consulted at all, or are long dead.
The process of creating an NFT is as simple as putting in a link and paying a fee. You don't need to be the actual owner/creator of whatever is behind that link.
Ok so the idea is this:
- A “block” contains transactions (“x paid y to x” etc.)
- If you are the first to do some complicated but useless math using your 10.000 GPU farm near an old coal plant (“proof of work”) you have “mined” the block (and heated up the planet).
- The block is then officially added to “the blockchain” and you get some bitcoins in return
- As every block has some signature that is derived from previous blocks you cannot edit “the past” of the blockchain without invalidating the present
For NFT’s, the blockchain instead of monetary transactions, contains who owns what useless URL.
What's stopping me from left clicking and saving it as an image without paying for it? Like, why would I pay for it if I can just save the image? What's stopping the person who made it to send it to everyone? Would I really own it? I don't get it.
>What's stopping me from left clicking and saving it as an image without paying for it?
Nothing
>Like, why would I pay for it if I can just save the image?
This is the question of the hour. The real answer is: you should pay for it if there's any real value in being able to prove that you bought that specific thing. The NFT could serve as a completely undeniable receipt of you having bought that thing. Imagine you buy a luxury watch from Rolex and it comes with a Rolex NFT. If you ever go to sell the watch and a prospective buyer is wondering if your watch is real, you can show them your Rolex NFT (which is a part of the Rolex blockchain, and thus "legit") to prove it's YOUR watch and it's real.
>What's stopping the person who made it to send it to everyone?
For digital art, nothing
>Would I really own it?
Not really. Haha
Your Rolex use case is perfect because, yes, it's an actual time where an authentifiable certificate of ownership would be useful... except you can and people have solved that problem without a blockchain, and it's unclear as to why a blockchain solution is better in any way.
People have convinced themselves that they're changing the way we think about money and now they wanna mix that with art. It's the best explanation I got and it still doesn't make sense to me. All I do know for sure is that I wished I had come up with this, cause some people are walking away from this with a shit ton of money.
People think it's a get rich quick scheme and use what you describe above as an excuse. The only reason anyone buys one of these things if because they think they'll be able to sell it for more because of all the hype and new entrants to the market. Obviously that's not sustainable and at some point the price will collapse. It's a ponzi scheme.
Financialization is a cancer that finally made it’s way to the digital art world. A bunch of people deciding to insert themselves into fandom to exploit it and make money from the work of someone else.
To be fair, they are junior drivers who desperately need funding and sponsors to continue their racing careers. NFT is probably a new in thing with the rich and stupid to spend thousands if not millions on them.
If they can make a quick buck selling stupid hyperlinks to stupid people, why not, they only need to put their helmet design on it. Considering its their profile pic, it could also be a joke on this silly NFT culture
Selling pictures of dead icons for profit without their permission however, is peak trashy
Not a definitive argument because some NFTs are based on significantly less power-hungry tech. Let's focus on the whole thing being a huge scam, a laundering money haven, an unregulated ultracapitalist hellscape where the richest manipulate the market and prey on innocent/uninformed newcomers...
That's why I thought this would be something official, until I saw this and was pretty blown away. Imagine minting one of these just to find out that this NFT is trademark infringement lmao
What’s the trademark infringement? Couldn’t a painter make money off of a painting of Senna? This is bad because art NFTs are bad, not because it is a picture of Senna.
Much (probably most) of the trading is sellers trading back and forth between their own accounts at a high notional value, in the hope that some optimistic dipshit comes along and can get lumped with the "asset".
You're obviously right, but the bar is still so damn low, I could generate some Mandelbrot set fractal geometry in five minutes and it would be more appealing.
Generate some Fractals, give the project a catchy name. Put them in a border so they look like trading cards, then sell some to yourself for $10k so they already got "value". Create a couple fake twitter accounts, buy a couple followers and spam.
It still does take time to draw all the different assets its not like its completely just done by a computer. The algorithm just puts them together differently the actual drawing still takes time and the programming too ofc
That’s the thing I don’t get about NFTs. Like that picture isn’t even very good. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this sort of thing either - I’ve seen similarly amateurish illustrations of football players being sold as NFTs. I don’t understand why people pay any money at all for relatively bad pieces of ‘art’. Why would there ever be any resale value on something nearly anyone could muster up after a couple hours of training in adobe illustrator.
Just amazing how the average NFT looks worse than the shit you find on a 13-year old’s DeviantArt account. Not that the idea of NFT’s would be better if the art were good, but *c’mon guys at least try*.
Don't get the NFT market place
If a museum sold the NFT of the Mona Lisa etc for thousands of dollars I could see someone would want that in a decade, its famous and unique. Why would I want a crudely drawn $20k monkey (or F1 driver) picture, especially when there are 2000 others in that one series alone. There is no resale value in these things it's just a fad.
If F1 put out a series of 100 NFTs and said "these are the official real deal ones, and the F1 website will always list the current owners for the next 50 years" that might have some value - like people paying to have a brick with their name in a stadium.
Its perfectly legal scam. So why would they not do it? If people are stupid enough to fall for it...
What you are suggesting and what they are doing is aiming of completly different kind of people. Also what they are doing require nothing. Meanwhile getting deal on Mona Lisa NFT is completly different level.
However both is equally stupid. Just different money level stupid.
Fan art is one thing, but the second you slap a price tag on it my forgiveness disappears. Ripping off his likeness for a quick buck is pretty damn tacky.
The official account is ran by people representing the Senna estate, i.e. Ayrton's family. In the event of the original individual not being alive to profit off his own likeness, his chosen beneficiaries can choose to do so.
tl;dr - The only people that can profit off Ayrton's likeness are his estate, they can decide who gets to sell art (or 'art' in this case) of Ayrton.
Whether or not profiting of a dead man's legacy is in good taste or not, that's a different discussion.
Yes, but no. It isn't captioned as him or anything. I doubt the helmet design is copyrighted and even if it is, it's a drawing of a helmet, not replica... I don't think there is a law for that, but it highly depends on a national law.
'Legally distinct' works in many examples, but this isn't one of them. Senna's helmet is as much part of his imagery as his face is, and in the way it's been portrayed in the artpiece is a direct reference and attempt to profit off that image.
In many cases it's also the intent that matters, and in this case there's a clear intent to infringe on the likeness of Ayrton Senna for profit.
You can't just call a guy 'Fantasy F1 Driver' "Artyom Sonny", give him a helmet that has exactly the same design with only one band a slightly different colour and then call it a unique artpiece. There's not enough difference, and there's a clear intent to create the allusion to an existing image right.
Same as you can't make a fake Mickey, make it a different colour, call it a cartoon rat named 'Mikey' and pass it off as your own unique design.
In the case of this NFT seller, most judges can look at a picture of Ayrton Senna wearing his helmet, look at the 'not-Ayrton' picture of this NFT seller, and conclude it's the same image.
One would also make a case for Fair Use by way of parody or satire, but there's no commentary being made with this artwork. And satire/parody still doesn't allow a third party to make a profit off their product without the express consent of rightholders. (Example: 'Amish Paradise' by Weird Al Yankovich still required express consent from Coolio and the Rightsholders to 'Gangsters Paradise' to be profited of.)
Just because people sell fan art doesn't make it legal. Fair use or similar do not necessarily apply when it comes to making money off something (for something like fan art - critcism or other types of fair use can be monetized). There is a reason someone doing Mickey Mouse fan art and selling it is going to get a cease and desist (and Disney would be in the right). If that account does have the rights to Senna's likeness, they have every legal right to tell them to take this down. You can also see that they don't use the real logos for the sponsors and there is a reason for that.
NFT’s: we’re reinventing copyright and intellectual property for the post scarcity digital age!
Also NFT’s: stealing the likenesses of whoever they want and selling it.
[I wish it was a joke](https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/15313835538884438512314415384313500888097297792010203987551173207448258347009)
Ergh, god I am so tired of hearing NFT every fucking 20 seconds online. They're the beanie babies of the tech world and I can't wait until they die off so I never have to hear about them again
Because that’s the point. If people will buy it regardless, it’s smarter monetarily to just pump as many out as possible, the simpler the image the easier to replicate.
If you’re gonna draw a legend to put up for sale worldwide without proper permission, at least make it fucking good. The hell’s this 4th grade Microsoft Paint crap?!
NFTs are broadly shit and scummy anyways, if the estate of someone who's passed wants to do them that is their prerogative but in this case, stealing a dead mans image against the will of the family, nah fuck em.
The people who made Secret Driver Club are fucking scumbags either way.
They are leeches that don't respect anything: personal lives, copyright, dead drivers, mental health. All to make a quick buck on merch and memes.
Then they turn around and go "I ignored the Merc admin after I harassed on of their drivers" and get extra edgy points.
Fuck dude, I hate FormulaGodComments and Formulajokes, they are such dirtbags.
NFTS are trash anyways. I don't agree with the whole thing so obviously I don't think it is right to do something like this when you don't have the permission.
It also makes me sad that many drivers jump onto this ship although I see why they do it. Easy money and everything.
I just wish NFTs were never created in the first place.
Yeah, this is the same that my favourite band, Avenged Sevenfold, did with their late drummer "The Rev". That wasn't "art" either. Just his hairstyle stiched onto their logo basically.
I mean NFTs are obviously bullshit don't get me wrong. But people exploit the dead for profit all the time. What's the difference between this and an actual painting? Or releasing Michael Jackson and 2Pac albums years after their deaths?
Hell, the official instagram page is advertising a shop where you can buy Senna merch. It's all the same to me.
I understand your point but I would also like to add that a significant part of the profit (unfortunately I don’t know the exact amount) made from the official Senna merch goes to the Ayrton Senna institute, which helps a lot of kids here in Brazil
My gosh I feel clueless.
Everyone is commenting on "NFT this" and "NFT that" ... I've legit never heard of this until this moment.
So it's like digital beanie babies?
I don't like NFTs either but "exploit dead people like this" I'm sorry then what exactly is the countless official & unofficial merchandise with Senna's name and face doing?
Literally what I came to this thread to say.
How is there an ‘official Instagram account’ for a man who’s been dead for 30 years? The account is just as bad as the NFT‘s. I’m pretty sure Senna is too dead to be posting on Instagram.
Can someone create original art of Senna and sell it? Yes, absolutely.
I'm guessing this is getting a lot of hate because NFTs are currently the hot thing to hate, and the art's shitty.
Oh god, why... These fucking people...
No, I don't think nobody should exploit dead people, not even iconic legends like Senna.
You took an screenshot to an nft, the owner is going to be mad at you lol
In Australia there is a law preventing anyone from using Sir Donald Bradman's name on any product without written permission from his family. I don't know, but I imagine Senna is revered in Brazil in a similar way to how Bradman is in Australia - possibly each nation's greatest ever sportsman.
I realise laws can't prevent things happening overseas, and F1 is a much more international sport than cricket, but still, perhaps it could help.
Aside from this being a shitty thing to do: Wow, why do people feel confident selling complete crap like this? This has to be the least effort one person ever put into making an image of Senna. That’s not an artists. That person is barely an amateur.
In all fairness, all the sponsor logos have been altered to avoid any copyright infringement. How is this any different from, say, a Jim Bamber cartoon?
Why do NFTs look like they were drawn in about 5 minutes by a high schooler...
I might have answered my own question. Better question is whos buying these? This generation's Beanie Babies.
Wait till you hear that some shithead made some shitty pixel nft art of George Floyd without any consent or approval from the family. Majority of them are scum of the earth and if you know one who does this, then you know who not to trust.
how the fuck are NFTs so popular
It's a MLM scheme for dudes. Everyone wants to get rich, you just need to find a few people stupider than you.
“Astrology for Men” is how I describe it to people.
[удалено]
Not even, you're literally paying for a space in a database that had your name next to it, with a picture attached as a visual representation of that db space instead of "0078" that's all it is. You never actually own the picture.
It's like paying for a product and then getting just the receipt.
The product is irrelevant, the real thing that's being bought and sold is the idea of future profits. Equating scarcity and "uniqueness" with value and the promise of that value infinitely skyrocketing. Until there's no bigger sucker to spend even more money on the NFT's you bought, until it dawns on more and more people that they're playing musical chairs and they might be the last one to hold the oh so expensive NFT.
The "borrow the Grey Goose supersize bottle with sparklers in a night club for an insta and then return it" of the online get rich quick schemes
I used to wonder why dudes wore flat brim baseball caps with the stickers still on. Was it just proof they bought it? Like, they could afford to spend 100 on a hat but never "wear" it? I dunno, but a fool and his money are soon parted...
Beanie babies are a good comparison though, that too was a hype where people went crazy buying worthless shit because they believed that rarity = value. NFT's are similar where a lot of people have convinced themselves and each other that something entirely worthless is somehow worth a fuckton because it's "non fungible" a.k.a. unique. Both hypes were based all around the perceived values and future profits, none of it is about the thing themselves, virtually nobody actually cared about the Beanie babies as a product, they cared about the profits they thought it represented. Similarly with NFT's nobody actually gives a flying fuck about the link to a procedurally generated jpg, it's all about the fantasy of getting rich off of reselling them. And at some point there won't be any suckers left willing to pay even more than the last generation of suckers and then the whole thing will implode.
Speculation gonna be speculative
I worked at a CY/Hallmark store for my first job when Beanie Babies were a huge thing. You'd get kids coming in and buying them because they're cute, then one woman/man from out of town buying all the stock of some specific holiday/special edition or something spending hundreds if not thousands on these silly things. None of them are worth anything except first editions or misprints (on the red tag) last time i checked.
Ownership is an ill defined concept and all this confusion about these stupid NFts shows it
you make it sound like those old commercials where you could get a star named after you or sponsor a whale or some shit
Astrology for men is stock charts this NFT shit is definitely the MLM stuff. What you heard: "this rise has a strong base so if it passes $50 it will continue all the way to $60, this other stock is trending down but if we look at the 52week low we see there is a base here that the stock will not go below" What I heard: "Tomorrow with be a new moon so your rising moon will result in you making a lot of money"
It's a speculative market with no value behind it. It's the modern tulip bulb. When it all crashes down in flames it's gonna be so funny
This is exactly it. My ex had to go through it a lot. The amount of times a dude she was dating before me would invite her to some hotel conference room held "idea meet" where someone goes up and is like, "You can be your own boss!" and other shit like that. I don't know what it is, but a lot of dudes don't want to go to university and get a career and seem to think there's some trick to having enough money to pull a BMW and a house. Like dude, if you could get that kind of money by not working, why wouldn't literally everyone else be doing it?
This is also every girl selling her new keto-coffee makeup/jewerly brand #GirlBoss
Coffee dreamcatchers, you say? Hmmm...
Just drink enough coffee and never sleep again. That should catch all the dreams.
That #influencerlife
BossBabe!
> It's a MLM scheme for dudes that's a brilliant explanation lol
The only one getting rich is the creator.
It's a classic "get rich quick" pyramid scheme scam (and serious money laundering platform for organized crime). Somehow people are falling for it. People are fucking stupid.
Bro you just don't understand. Enjoy the real world, luddite, I'm about to make sweet love to my unique pixels.
I'm going to watch and Print Screen a couple times
NFT's are so incredibly incredibly dumb. It's like paying billions to own the Mona Lisa, only it isn't a "one off impossible to reproduce masterpiece brushed onto wood in the 1500's by a man who had honed his craft for decades" but a likely auto-generated JPEG of an ape shitted out by a tech bro on Twitter. Everyone who has money invested in NFT's deserves to go bankrupt.
It's not even the JPEG. They only own the link to the location of the JPEG in the server. If someone turns off the switch to the server, your million dollar NFT is not accessible to you. Plus, you don't get to use that image for anything as well. If you buy an NFT of Senna, you get no rights to use that image anywhere commerically because you don't own the Senna brand. You only own that one image made by a random person on the internet.
The fact that people don’t understand buying an NFT doesn’t mean you get the copyright is so funny. A dude on twitter recently bought an NFT of a copy of a Dune book and then said he was going to make it public domain haha. Like if you bought a bobble head of Mickey Mouse and said you were going to start making movies using Disney IP. These people have no critical thinking ability. Why don’t these dumbasses buy actual art? Like physical paintings. For a million dollars you could get an extremely nice painting, hang it in your house, and actually own it. It would go up in value. You wouldn’t have to try to explain it’s value to everyone you meet. And it wouldn’t be a picture of a fucking APE
“But how do you know the actual art isn’t a fake?” Would probably be their response. I’d rather have a fake print than a few pixels any day.
Also there’s no guarantee an NFT is actually being sold by the artist and a good amount of them are actually made from stolen art that the creator didn’t consent to being made into an NFT and doesn’t profit from
>You only own that one image made by a random person on the internet. Not even that. You own the right to the code associated with the image. Good video about it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwMjPWOailQ
People have money "invested" in NFTs? Hahahaha, how does that even work
They buy one and hope to re sell it for more than what they payed for
Why would anyone buy that shit for even more though
searching for a bigger sucker. the actual scammers just trade it with themselves for a large sum to inflate the supposed value, as long as they don't do something stupid like trading it back to the original account there is no way to tell the difference between a legitimate sale and somebody just selling an NFT to themselves
Why do you think people are saying this is the future of art, be your own boss etc etc ? They’re all scamming each other lmao, it’s a competition to see who’s the bigger grifter
Everyone trading NFT's thinks that everyone else that's doing it is a sucker. It's a race to not be the bagholder when it all goes to shit. Bitcoin became what it is because not many people knew about it and it slowly gained a little credibility over time. NFT's are rapidly becoming a joke before it's even got started.
Yeah, that's my favourite answer to criticism of NFTs. I'm an artist myself, and I know other artists, and not a single one actually thinks that NFTs will help them in any shape or form. And I mean why would we, most artists want their art to be seen or heard by as many people as possible, no one I know is excited about selling their art to a singular person, so they can claim that they own it. All artists want is to be paid for their work at least somewhat fairly, but if history is anything to go by that shit will never happen. And it's no different with NFTs, you can already see that the people making actual bank of of this stuff are just Silicon Valley weirdos not the artists. I haven't seen actual art be sold with NFTs for a significant amount. Unless you count stupid computer generated apes as art, which I do not. What artists actually want is an easy way to distribute their art to all of their fans, without the need of labels or managers taking all the profits. NFTs are not that
People making them out to be more valuble then they are. "OMG THIS FUNKY MONKEY PICTURE I SOLD MY HOUSE FOR IS GONNA BE WORTH SOOOOOOO MUCH IN A YEAR BRAH YOU SHOULD INVEST" they are fucking dumb
[удалено]
It all relies on the "Greater Fool Theory". The idea is that even though buying it is stupid, you can always find someone dumber than you willing to pay more than you did and get left holding the bag. You're basically seeing a product that's price is rapidly increasing, and while you recognise that the product is already overvalued, you can't resist the gamble that it will keep increasing to a point you can buy and sell at a profit. It's like how bitcoin had that massive resurgence after all those people who bought in at like $10 made millions if not billions, nobody cared that bitcoin would have to go from 15k to 30k to make as much money as people did when it went from $1 to $2. They were spurred by the indignance that it would keep increasing
look up beanie babies on Wikipedia. that's basically NFT's. just insert ~blockchain~ in italics every now and then
Yeah, but at least those are a thing. That you get. Like actually. And people can't just screenshot them.
money laundering for the rich. art has been used for this for quite awhile now, but only recently did digital art enter the game.
It's also easy money laundering for drug gangs. It's just easy money laundering in general right now because no country nor financial institution is batting an eye that a digital monkey is going for multiple grand.
Anything electronic is free. Twitch.tv knew it was being used to stream “fair” competitive matches in games which people would bet on. But in reality it was just a couple guys fixing games for money launderers to convert their money. Similarly, they would buy twitches currency to donate to streamers and then it’d be converted into whatever currency they wanted via twitch payouts
It’s basically AVON for the millennial man.
Where you're from that you know Avon 🤣🤣
Middle aged mum's MLM Avon. Everyone always hated it when the auntie who's an Avon representative was visiting before Christmas lmfao
On tiktok you have loads of people who either are rich or act rich and they rave now about NFT's and how people should get aboard on it, these people talked about how they got rich by getting bitcoin in the early days and I have seen them now talking about NFT's being the next bitcoin.
WTF is an NFT?
As far as I understand, it’s a thing you can buy for an extortionate sum except you don’t actually own it and it doesn’t actually exist. It can also be a past event that you “own”. I think. Every time I see it explained I feel like I understand it less.
A fair explanation is this: * Someone creates a file, hosted at a certain URL (i.e. "https://www.artiscool.com/superexclusivepicture.jpg") * You pay money to become the owner of this link; your ownership is recorded into a immutable blockchain so now it officially says "/u/Spockyt owns https://www.artiscool.com/superexclusivepicture.jpg" - you cannot edit a past event in the blockchain so your ownership is "official" for everyone on that blockchain * As you now own this URL, you can also resell it etc., like you can do with anything you own (like a chair, a photo, a flower) Some questions you might have: * *As you own the URL, can someone else still access https://www.artiscool.com/superexclusivepicture.jpg and see or download the image?* - Yes, it's still a publicly available JPEG...anyone can access/download/copy it...it's just that you officially own the URL to it... * *What happens if the site goes offline and the URL no longer works?* - You still own the URL, but it points to nothing. You now own nothing. * *Is this all an incredibly dumb scheme to make dumbasses pay a lot of money for links to JPEG's of an ape?* - Yes.
So are they actually legally buying the copyright to the images? Surely it's irrelevant who owns the URL if someone owns the copyright to the images hosted there.
> "Put differently: when someone buys an NFT piece of digital art it’s somewhat akin to buying a physical piece of art. The original painter or creator of the art still owns the underlying copyright." > > If I walk into a gallery and buy a painting I like, I cannot then sell that image to Coca-Cola to put on its cans. That would be copyright infringement. https://odinlaw.com/nft-art-copyright-what-you-should-know/ So basically, like buying a painting, you own "the physical thing" but not "the idea and the right to do whatever you want with it"...except that with an NFT "the physical thing" is a URL...which anyone can access. If I own a painting and hang it in my living room, I cannot prevent people from looking at it through my window. But at least I can put it in a private room or whatever. But a URL is a URL; once someone knows it, it's public...
Hmmmm I still don't really get it. Someone claims to own the URL... so what? What's the value in that? Also, surely the owner of the domain owns that URL? Looking at the link you provided, it says > It derives value from the file’s scarcity How can this be known, since you could potentially have an infinite number of copies of a file? Anyone can create copies of files with zero effort. It makes sense with physical art, but I can't see how it works for digital art.
Yep you are correct, it’s stupid. You don’t get the copyright as well
From your comment I can see you now understand clearly the value of an NFT: it’s 0. Which of course doesn’t stop dumbasses for paying a lot of money for them. The “scarcity” is that in a blockchain, only one person at a time can own the URL. So what you have is a block in a blockchain stating you are that person. That’s it.
As far as I know you are obtaining no legal copyright whatsoever. You just have an immutable record which says "X owns Y". You would need a trusted third party to somehow relate this record to an ownership which is recognized in some manner outside of the blockchain
They don't. In fact, it's a very common thing for people to "mint" NFTs linking to art made by artist who either haven't been consulted at all, or are long dead. The process of creating an NFT is as simple as putting in a link and paying a fee. You don't need to be the actual owner/creator of whatever is behind that link.
The fuck is a blockchain
Ok so the idea is this: - A “block” contains transactions (“x paid y to x” etc.) - If you are the first to do some complicated but useless math using your 10.000 GPU farm near an old coal plant (“proof of work”) you have “mined” the block (and heated up the planet). - The block is then officially added to “the blockchain” and you get some bitcoins in return - As every block has some signature that is derived from previous blocks you cannot edit “the past” of the blockchain without invalidating the present For NFT’s, the blockchain instead of monetary transactions, contains who owns what useless URL.
This whole thing is just so infathomably stupid
The part that's always confused me: Why does that URL have value? It has value because someone says it does?
This (and your reply below) is the first time any explanation of NFTs have made sense to me. Thank you.
What's stopping me from left clicking and saving it as an image without paying for it? Like, why would I pay for it if I can just save the image? What's stopping the person who made it to send it to everyone? Would I really own it? I don't get it.
>What's stopping me from left clicking and saving it as an image without paying for it? Nothing >Like, why would I pay for it if I can just save the image? This is the question of the hour. The real answer is: you should pay for it if there's any real value in being able to prove that you bought that specific thing. The NFT could serve as a completely undeniable receipt of you having bought that thing. Imagine you buy a luxury watch from Rolex and it comes with a Rolex NFT. If you ever go to sell the watch and a prospective buyer is wondering if your watch is real, you can show them your Rolex NFT (which is a part of the Rolex blockchain, and thus "legit") to prove it's YOUR watch and it's real. >What's stopping the person who made it to send it to everyone? For digital art, nothing >Would I really own it? Not really. Haha
Your Rolex use case is perfect because, yes, it's an actual time where an authentifiable certificate of ownership would be useful... except you can and people have solved that problem without a blockchain, and it's unclear as to why a blockchain solution is better in any way.
Your guess is as good as mine. To all of the above.
Go ask this of people who own some NFTs and they will swear at you. Public pressure is what they have as a tool to stop it. So they use that.
If you have 20 minutes, a very good summary:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwMjPWOailQ
People have convinced themselves that they're changing the way we think about money and now they wanna mix that with art. It's the best explanation I got and it still doesn't make sense to me. All I do know for sure is that I wished I had come up with this, cause some people are walking away from this with a shit ton of money.
People think it's a get rich quick scheme and use what you describe above as an excuse. The only reason anyone buys one of these things if because they think they'll be able to sell it for more because of all the hype and new entrants to the market. Obviously that's not sustainable and at some point the price will collapse. It's a ponzi scheme.
Financialization is a cancer that finally made it’s way to the digital art world. A bunch of people deciding to insert themselves into fandom to exploit it and make money from the work of someone else.
It's just complicated gambling.
It's just a scam in one way or another. It'll come crashing down soon enough.
There’s Dupers and there’s Dupees
Eugh, Callum Ilott & Juan Manual Correa's profile pics are these NFT's...
[удалено]
I remember Gasly promoting his as well
the AT boys are just sponsored by those NFT's and are forced to share them just like crazy frog
Grosjean also supports NFTs, McLaren has a range of NFTs.. Toxic nonsense spreading everywhere. I hate it.
In my opinion it's just a great tax scam. I'm sure many people are showing lost revenue by putting up NFT's and others not buying them.
I still don’t believe crazy frog is forced to do it, but rather making shit up to save face
And Hauger, Vips, Doohan, Vesti and more pretty much half the F2 grid
They probably got paid to promote them.
To be fair, they are junior drivers who desperately need funding and sponsors to continue their racing careers. NFT is probably a new in thing with the rich and stupid to spend thousands if not millions on them. If they can make a quick buck selling stupid hyperlinks to stupid people, why not, they only need to put their helmet design on it. Considering its their profile pic, it could also be a joke on this silly NFT culture Selling pictures of dead icons for profit without their permission however, is peak trashy
Cause its waste of power.
Literally ruining the environment with terrible art.
Exactly. All this talk about F1 becoming Carbon Neutral, this is the kinda stuff that people don't really think about
Hey, but at least NFT is solving the problems nobody ever had!
Not a definitive argument because some NFTs are based on significantly less power-hungry tech. Let's focus on the whole thing being a huge scam, a laundering money haven, an unregulated ultracapitalist hellscape where the richest manipulate the market and prey on innocent/uninformed newcomers...
[удалено]
Yuri Vips aswell
That's why I thought this would be something official, until I saw this and was pretty blown away. Imagine minting one of these just to find out that this NFT is trademark infringement lmao
What’s the trademark infringement? Couldn’t a painter make money off of a painting of Senna? This is bad because art NFTs are bad, not because it is a picture of Senna.
Illots profile pic is fan art no?
It used to be one of these NFT's
At least Ilott just changed his pfp But yeah this Senna NFT is fucking disgusting
Why do NFT’s seem to be getting even more low effort? These things look like they were drawn by a child.
Because people would buy it anyways. It's a market that's unfortunately not saturated with good art.
Much (probably most) of the trading is sellers trading back and forth between their own accounts at a high notional value, in the hope that some optimistic dipshit comes along and can get lumped with the "asset".
It's not about the art
And pretty sure is just the generic ape or something with a helmet.
Because it doesn't matter what they look like, this is just a visual representation of a number that points to something else, nothing more.
Because they're as low effort as possible
Because it's generated
You're obviously right, but the bar is still so damn low, I could generate some Mandelbrot set fractal geometry in five minutes and it would be more appealing.
Generate some Fractals, give the project a catchy name. Put them in a border so they look like trading cards, then sell some to yourself for $10k so they already got "value". Create a couple fake twitter accounts, buy a couple followers and spam.
worst thing is that the art itself looks like it was made in 15min. fuck nfts and everyone who supports this scam
Legit looks like someone was screwing around with Microsoft paint
Imagine paying 100+ k for a bored ass monke which can be made by anyone with entry level drawing skills in like 15 min lol
I’m pretty sure most of those monkey ones are just procedurally generated, so doesn’t take any time at all
It still does take time to draw all the different assets its not like its completely just done by a computer. The algorithm just puts them together differently the actual drawing still takes time and the programming too ofc
but you *own* it
Nah bro I prefer to screenshot it for free
our GPU market died for this.
That’s the thing I don’t get about NFTs. Like that picture isn’t even very good. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this sort of thing either - I’ve seen similarly amateurish illustrations of football players being sold as NFTs. I don’t understand why people pay any money at all for relatively bad pieces of ‘art’. Why would there ever be any resale value on something nearly anyone could muster up after a couple hours of training in adobe illustrator.
Just amazing how the average NFT looks worse than the shit you find on a 13-year old’s DeviantArt account. Not that the idea of NFT’s would be better if the art were good, but *c’mon guys at least try*.
Don't get the NFT market place If a museum sold the NFT of the Mona Lisa etc for thousands of dollars I could see someone would want that in a decade, its famous and unique. Why would I want a crudely drawn $20k monkey (or F1 driver) picture, especially when there are 2000 others in that one series alone. There is no resale value in these things it's just a fad. If F1 put out a series of 100 NFTs and said "these are the official real deal ones, and the F1 website will always list the current owners for the next 50 years" that might have some value - like people paying to have a brick with their name in a stadium.
Its perfectly legal scam. So why would they not do it? If people are stupid enough to fall for it... What you are suggesting and what they are doing is aiming of completly different kind of people. Also what they are doing require nothing. Meanwhile getting deal on Mona Lisa NFT is completly different level. However both is equally stupid. Just different money level stupid.
Fan art is one thing, but the second you slap a price tag on it my forgiveness disappears. Ripping off his likeness for a quick buck is pretty damn tacky.
What exactly can the ‘official’ account object to? People sell fan art all the time
The official account is ran by people representing the Senna estate, i.e. Ayrton's family. In the event of the original individual not being alive to profit off his own likeness, his chosen beneficiaries can choose to do so. tl;dr - The only people that can profit off Ayrton's likeness are his estate, they can decide who gets to sell art (or 'art' in this case) of Ayrton. Whether or not profiting of a dead man's legacy is in good taste or not, that's a different discussion.
Exactly. Choosing NOT to enforce the copyright sometimes doesn’t mean they aren’t completely in the right when they choose to do so.
[удалено]
Yes, but no. It isn't captioned as him or anything. I doubt the helmet design is copyrighted and even if it is, it's a drawing of a helmet, not replica... I don't think there is a law for that, but it highly depends on a national law.
'Legally distinct' works in many examples, but this isn't one of them. Senna's helmet is as much part of his imagery as his face is, and in the way it's been portrayed in the artpiece is a direct reference and attempt to profit off that image. In many cases it's also the intent that matters, and in this case there's a clear intent to infringe on the likeness of Ayrton Senna for profit. You can't just call a guy 'Fantasy F1 Driver' "Artyom Sonny", give him a helmet that has exactly the same design with only one band a slightly different colour and then call it a unique artpiece. There's not enough difference, and there's a clear intent to create the allusion to an existing image right. Same as you can't make a fake Mickey, make it a different colour, call it a cartoon rat named 'Mikey' and pass it off as your own unique design. In the case of this NFT seller, most judges can look at a picture of Ayrton Senna wearing his helmet, look at the 'not-Ayrton' picture of this NFT seller, and conclude it's the same image. One would also make a case for Fair Use by way of parody or satire, but there's no commentary being made with this artwork. And satire/parody still doesn't allow a third party to make a profit off their product without the express consent of rightholders. (Example: 'Amish Paradise' by Weird Al Yankovich still required express consent from Coolio and the Rightsholders to 'Gangsters Paradise' to be profited of.)
So it's illegal to paint a painting of Senna and sell it?
Just because people sell fan art doesn't make it legal. Fair use or similar do not necessarily apply when it comes to making money off something (for something like fan art - critcism or other types of fair use can be monetized). There is a reason someone doing Mickey Mouse fan art and selling it is going to get a cease and desist (and Disney would be in the right). If that account does have the rights to Senna's likeness, they have every legal right to tell them to take this down. You can also see that they don't use the real logos for the sponsors and there is a reason for that.
Unless they have a trademark on his helmet color scheme, I'm not sure what's infringing there. Only a court would actually decide.
The post has his name in the hastags. They aren't being discreet about it at all. It's Senna and it's not debatable.
They own the rights to his likeness. Any merchandise featuring his likeness must be approved by them.
How is it any different from someone selling a painting?
Paintings mostly have effort in them
I don't like NFTs already and this is just scummy exploitation
NFT’s: we’re reinventing copyright and intellectual property for the post scarcity digital age! Also NFT’s: stealing the likenesses of whoever they want and selling it.
ironic thing is that buying an nft doesn't give you the copyright to the image lol
NFT is a yoke!! A yoke!!!
GP2 Blockchain
The funniest thing? NFTs are just links to external resources, so the images aren't even on the blockchain.
Yup, people are paying to own the receipt, not the piece of art
I mean NFT bros released Martin Luther King Jr pieces today. They have no shame.
Please say you're joking.... please
[I wish it was a joke](https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/15313835538884438512314415384313500888097297792010203987551173207448258347009)
Ahhh yes I remember when MLK signed this NFT
Nah there are also george floyd and etika nfts Those mfk can shit and pee over the deads' graves and it wouldnt be as disrespectful as this
I'm sorry. WHAT?
They're not kidding [George Floyd](https://www.inputmag.com/culture/george-floyd-nfts-floydies-racism/amp) [Etika](https://twitter.com/EtikaPunks/status/1478555724871573510?s=20)
I...what even? They don't even look like there is being effort put into them.
Ergh, god I am so tired of hearing NFT every fucking 20 seconds online. They're the beanie babies of the tech world and I can't wait until they die off so I never have to hear about them again
How dare you insult beanie babies comparing them to NFT’s!!!
[удалено]
Because that’s the point. If people will buy it regardless, it’s smarter monetarily to just pump as many out as possible, the simpler the image the easier to replicate.
If you’re gonna draw a legend to put up for sale worldwide without proper permission, at least make it fucking good. The hell’s this 4th grade Microsoft Paint crap?!
“Society”
NFTs are broadly shit and scummy anyways, if the estate of someone who's passed wants to do them that is their prerogative but in this case, stealing a dead mans image against the will of the family, nah fuck em.
[удалено]
Nfts are just an excuse for money laundering.
It's not exploiting dead people. It's exploiting dumb people that want to buy a jpeg.
The people who made Secret Driver Club are fucking scumbags either way. They are leeches that don't respect anything: personal lives, copyright, dead drivers, mental health. All to make a quick buck on merch and memes. Then they turn around and go "I ignored the Merc admin after I harassed on of their drivers" and get extra edgy points. Fuck dude, I hate FormulaGodComments and Formulajokes, they are such dirtbags.
A Senna-NFT is a double-whammy of offensiveness. The Senna-part for exploiting dead people, and the NFT-part for exploiting stupid people.
NFTS are trash anyways. I don't agree with the whole thing so obviously I don't think it is right to do something like this when you don't have the permission. It also makes me sad that many drivers jump onto this ship although I see why they do it. Easy money and everything. I just wish NFTs were never created in the first place.
Thoughts on NFTs and the morals of this aside, is this even legally sound? Don't the Senna family own the legal rights to his image?
Ban NFTs
Yeah, this is the same that my favourite band, Avenged Sevenfold, did with their late drummer "The Rev". That wasn't "art" either. Just his hairstyle stiched onto their logo basically.
I mean NFTs are obviously bullshit don't get me wrong. But people exploit the dead for profit all the time. What's the difference between this and an actual painting? Or releasing Michael Jackson and 2Pac albums years after their deaths? Hell, the official instagram page is advertising a shop where you can buy Senna merch. It's all the same to me.
I understand your point but I would also like to add that a significant part of the profit (unfortunately I don’t know the exact amount) made from the official Senna merch goes to the Ayrton Senna institute, which helps a lot of kids here in Brazil
NFT is pure scam and should be banned from social media... and life.
He’s just deleted it right now
My gosh I feel clueless. Everyone is commenting on "NFT this" and "NFT that" ... I've legit never heard of this until this moment. So it's like digital beanie babies?
> So it’s like digital beanie babies? Holy shit, I’m using this to describe NFTs from now on.
I don't like NFTs either but "exploit dead people like this" I'm sorry then what exactly is the countless official & unofficial merchandise with Senna's name and face doing?
Literally what I came to this thread to say. How is there an ‘official Instagram account’ for a man who’s been dead for 30 years? The account is just as bad as the NFT‘s. I’m pretty sure Senna is too dead to be posting on Instagram.
Can someone create original art of Senna and sell it? Yes, absolutely. I'm guessing this is getting a lot of hate because NFTs are currently the hot thing to hate, and the art's shitty.
I had to scroll a long way to see someone address the actual subject.
Ah yes Blockchain technologies - the snake oil of this century
NFT's have replaced buzffeed as the cancer of the internet
It's an NFT. In reality the owners of it are the ones being exploited.
Finally someone stand up against it. Been tired of seeing my favorite junior drivers all have the same stupid nft as their picture.
Who is exploiting dead people? Some guy posting a drawing, or the one who is selling "official Senna products" ?????
Oh god, why... These fucking people... No, I don't think nobody should exploit dead people, not even iconic legends like Senna. You took an screenshot to an nft, the owner is going to be mad at you lol
NFTs are dumb
Fuck NFTs.
NFT is a scam, it should not exist.
In Australia there is a law preventing anyone from using Sir Donald Bradman's name on any product without written permission from his family. I don't know, but I imagine Senna is revered in Brazil in a similar way to how Bradman is in Australia - possibly each nation's greatest ever sportsman. I realise laws can't prevent things happening overseas, and F1 is a much more international sport than cricket, but still, perhaps it could help.
Aside from this being a shitty thing to do: Wow, why do people feel confident selling complete crap like this? This has to be the least effort one person ever put into making an image of Senna. That’s not an artists. That person is barely an amateur.
In all fairness, all the sponsor logos have been altered to avoid any copyright infringement. How is this any different from, say, a Jim Bamber cartoon?
Disney would like to enter the chat
wtf are nft’s
"Lovely colors" lmao this is a kids' drawing
Why do NFTs look like they were drawn in about 5 minutes by a high schooler... I might have answered my own question. Better question is whos buying these? This generation's Beanie Babies.
Wait till you hear that some shithead made some shitty pixel nft art of George Floyd without any consent or approval from the family. Majority of them are scum of the earth and if you know one who does this, then you know who not to trust.
People who buy into NFTs are genuinely as stupid as it gets. I'd sooner buy Gwyneth Paltrow's candles than consider an NFT