Thread by @punk6529

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.

superrare.com/artwork-v2/%22…

3/ OK, so @oveck has those. What can @oveck use them for?

Well I guess could make prints and sell them to others.

OK, that is fine, but I am net bearish prints and net bullish NFTs in terms of growth in the coming years.

4/ Also, if there is a 1/1 NFT and a 1/1 print, which is the original?

I think some of you would like to say "both, different mediums" and this is of course your right.

My gut is however that you are better off assigning originality to the NFT. Why?

5/ Because the capital formation and distribution of NFTs is so vastly superior to print/galleries that for the same artist, same piece, I believe the NFTs will end up selling for multiples of what the prints will sell for.

So you should lean into it and push the NFT IMHO

6/ What else can you do with the commercial rights?

a) put it on a stock photo site? lame and counterproductive

b) License it for an ad? Is this type of work really a great fit for an ad? It is so specific

c) Make a coffee mug line?

7/ My view is that even for an exceptional NFT photo like @oveck that the value that will accrue to the NFT that can be displayed perfectly, in perfect condition, in all types of virtual spaces will vastly exceed the value of the prints, the stock photo sites, the ad licenses.

8/ Bonus question: I buy a print from @oveck.

The print is lost is the mail. Is the piece gone?
I send the NFT to a burn address. Is the piece gone?

Which one matters in our digital world?