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
4/ I don't want your commercial photography rights for the same reason that you can't monetize them.
They are mostly unmonetizable
So at least experiment with remix and viral culture for some pieces to see if you can drive engagement
It may work & if it doesn't, no big loss!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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/ 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