3/ This is the most extreme model (but super interesting and thanks to @gmoneyNFT this experiment is a shining success).
There are other models: shared commercial rights with collector, assigned commercial rights to collector, not worrying about the prints, etc
4/ As we have discussed before, I am 100x more interested in high resolution NFTs that will look good in the @oncyber_io of 2030 than a physical print.
I have more virtual gallery space than physical and this will happen to *everyone* in coming years as they collect more & more
5/ Anyway, the experiment I will commit to buying 5 photography NFTs at 1ETH so long as they are released on the @cathsimard_ model above.
I have discussed with @cathsimard_ and she is supportive
Obviously this is a price that makes sense for emerging photographers
6/ The next steps:
a) shill a photography NFT that you are willing to release under this license in this thread
b) in a couple of days we will pick
c) we/you/together/fam can figure out what adjustments the license might need in your country
Have fun! π₯³
7/ I guess I should add:
a) if you are not an NFT photographer retweet to your NFT photographer frens
b) Might do other experiments in future w/ other rights models
1/ OK, last NFT photography thread this weekend to try to consolidate a bit my thoughts on what we discussed.
I think it is important for me to share first my view of the medium-term future of photography NFTs because I think it makes a lot of the rest more clear
2/ My general view of photography NFTs circa 2025 is:
- Infinite collections
- Infinite artists (pros and advanced amateurs)
- Infinite very decent photography NFTs
- Average selling price: 0.00 ETH
- Average licensing revenue: $0.00
- Average print sales: Close to zero
3/ Photography already has tremendous supply.
The reason micro-stock sites exist is not because corporations are evil or something strange like that.
It is because there are an awful lot of pretty decent photographers who enjoy photography and will accept the marginal income
1/ OK so we have early poll results but with n=180, the final answer won't change much
First thing, apparently 14% of photographers are making hundreds of thousands per year in licensing revenue (I figure they must have at least 100 'good' photos).
They are OK, let' move on
2/ 63% of the photographers around here are earning <$1/year/photograph from commercial rights.
Which means 1ETH represents 3000+ years of commercial rights.
Another 16% are <$100 so 1ETH represents 30+ years of commercial rights
3/ So to put the experiment in another context, I am saying:
a) give one photo open-source to the world, to use, remix, maybe get your name out there. Pick whatever one you want
b) For 80% of you, I will compensate you 30 to 3,000 years worth of 'lost earnings' from that photo
1/ So my experiment on 'would you open source 1 piece from your collection' is going very well, confirming that a large percentage of NFT photographers have no idea why NFT collectors are collecting their work
Let's work through a specific example
2/ Yesterday, I collected this amazing photograph from @oveck for 8.5ETH (~$25,000)
As with all art, the default position is that @oveck holds the copyright and associated rights.
12/ The default approach for all art is that rights rest with the artist.
You do not as a collector get the commercial rights.
That is true for photography, gen art and 1/1s and everything
13/ My specific thesis is not that your rights are worth exactly 1ETH but that you are probably overvaluing the 'commercial rights' vs the NFT.
And this is true if you are in the 0.1, 1, 10 or 100ETH range
14/ I consider this relatively easier in photography because photography is relatively high volume output for most artists (I am flooded w collections) so you can test different models "not with your grails"
Save your grails for traditional approach or sell rights super high