So Reddit sells these uh... "things" for a lot of money so users can add it to some sort of wallet, from that wallet they can click on it so it will bring them to 'their URL' (not) from where the Reddit avatar builders opens and they can add this as their avatar. :ameowsipzoom:
I took the effort to make screenshots so everyone can use them for FREE everywhere 
๐ณ๐ฑ
@stux As long as you know the risks I wont be saying anything. It seems blatent and intentional though so if anyone does report you you will have a hard time on this one I think.
@freemo If people, ill remove it 
@freemo No... don't you report it 
@stux I have no intention of reporting it.. just looking out for you.
@nyquildotorg @freemo Hmm good one! I wonder in how far 'screenshots' count.. and when is a screenshot a screenshot 
Has absolutely no relevance here. The fact that it is an NFT doesnt change the nature of the copyright over the image (which is not even transfered as part of the NFT).
Yup, and thats why they retain the right on the copyright.
You seem to be grossly misinformed about what copyright is.. you dont "copyright the image"... images are **automatically** copyrighted by the owner the moment they are created. An owner can give a use license to others if they wish (which is how we handle open source).. but short of that it is copyrighted by default.
NFTs only become legally enforcable if you explicitly write a license that automatically transfers right to use with the NFT. So most NFT you are right, but some can and do transfer ownership.
@jrishel
Well yea, transfering use rights only works if you have the copyright in the first place. So you have to create the art yourself, then offer the license up along with the NFT and set it up so the license transfers witht he NFT int he terms of the license itself. But yea all that is based on a "strong ciopyright" as in you have to clearly have the copyright to start with, and thus be the artist.
@freemo @stux @nyquildotorg pretty sure you're wrong here, friend.
Nothing wrong with screenshotting the art.
You can't own the rasterized pixels. You own a "receipt" ๐คฃ
Of course I'm not a lawyer so i could be wrong.
It's all so incredibly dumb.
No you are wrong, the law is clear and has 4 criteria, a screenshot isnt one of them.
There is a similar related rule though, one of the 4 conditions of fair use is it must be low-resolution.
Why not just read the laws rather than guess, it explains it well.
@freemo @stux @nyquildotorg got a link handy?
Half the NFTs I can think of being "low resolution" was the whole look to begin with, but sure I will peruse..
This article is a good one to get you up to speed on fair use criteria:
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
@freemo @stux @nyquildotorg I started to read that but I'd be more looking for something more directly about NFTs than fair use in general
From this other source though, I suspect you may be technically right (but nobody would likely enforce)
Anyway, thanks for posting
https://www.theverge.com/23139793/nft-crypto-copyright-ownership-primer-cornell-ic3
Well depends what you want to know, first you have to understand when you have a right to share an image that you didnt create, thats what the fair use link is about.
WRT NFT the only question then is who owns the copyright, because otherwise its no different than any other copyrighted thing.. for that there are some good articles I can recommend too but since we both agree it isnt Stux I suspect that thats just noise cause whoever it is, its not stux and thats all that matters here.
@freemo @stux @nyquildotorg people who buy these things don't care about the actual "art" anyway.
Mostly it's a big pyramid scheme and they are "investing".
Not a legal argument here, just an observation
Certainly true but has little bearing on why this post would be illegal.
No, you'd think thats how it works, but no. In most NFT copyright applies and is retained by the original artist, not the NFT holder. The NFT holder simply has some rights of use.
Now you do have some NFTs (a small minority) where the copyright ownership is transferred with the NFT.
However regardless of which type of copyright agreement we have here it wouldnt really make stux free and clear either way because whoever has the copyright, its not him.
The image has a copyright owner (as all images do). That owner has not given others the permission to reproduce... ergo it is illegal to reproduce it. Any other points you make is entirely irrelevant to the legality.
@freemo @nyquildotorg @stux Not all images have a copyright owner upon creation. If the creator is not human, such as an animal or force of nature or an AI, it cannot legally own a copyright and no one can legally own one on its behalf. Do we know that Reddit's NFTs are of human origin?
Fair use allows people to reproduce copyrighted material for purposes of criticism. Stux was okay until the last sentence, which is questionable. He was critiquing the material. If that last sentence was meant satirically, then he's okay with that, too. But if he was seriously asking people to reproduce the material for use other than for fair use purposes, then that's problematic.
As long as he says something about it, or even implies something about it, that's fair use.
Google reproduces copyrighted images all the time in their search results at a fairly high resolution and SCOTUS has ruled that that is fine.
That's my opinion. ๐
@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux
@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux
No not how it works, youcant reproduce something simply if you intend to criticise it... there are 4 criteria all of which much be met to qualify as fair use (outside of de minima clause)... none of those conditions are met here.
Google satisfies the criteria, stux did not.
There are no "4 criteria" hard and fast rules. There have been dozens of court opinions on this.
The whole purpose of fair use is to allow criticism of works, and to let people reproduce works for educational purposes.
The 4 criteria are hard in the sense that, while there are some exceptions, it is well established by the supreme court, and the exceptions are well noted...
There is **no** court case which suggests if you criticise a thing then you are allowed to reproduce it in full detail. In fact fair use **always** requires a low-quality reproduction as a universal criteria among others.
>"In fact fair use **always** requires a low-quality reproduction as a universal criteria among others."
No that's not true. What if you are critiquing how good the quality is? Then you need to show that.
In that case you have two options... show a small portion of the whole, or link to the original.. but no you cant show the entire thing in full quality, critiquing it doesnt get you off.
If the purpose of the reproduction is to harm the marketability of the work against the copyright holder, then yeah, that is not allowed.
But if they show a high-quality reproduction and say, "look at how high-quality this is, people should go buy one", the reproduction doesn't harm the market for the thing, then it's fine.
Google's reproductions actually harm the copyright holders, because people often get to see those images and sometimes that's it, they don't visit the site itself and then the copyright holder loses becasue of that. But SCOTUS has said that that is just fine. So it should be fine for someone to reproduce a work as I've indicated above.
harm against the copyright holder is one measure, but no, you can **not** reproduce something in full simply because you want to critique it.. show a court case that says that, none exists!
As for google, google images doesnt "reproduce" the work... for starters the images you see if cached are lower resolution, if not cached they link and reproduce the original work AND respect metatags that tell it when this is allowed or not... so you are really grasping at straws on this one.
>" ...but no, you can **not** reproduce something in full simply because you want to critique it.. show a court case that says that, none exists!"
Here are two:
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
- Blanch v. Koons
Nope.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. - In this case you are not reproducing , you are time shifting (you are allowed to watch once, not reproduce,a nd cant share it).
Blanch v. Koons - Also not an unaltered reproduction, this falls under transformatic fair use and by definition only applies when your version changes substantially the original.
But those were two cases in which the entire work was reproduced in full quality under fair use. (The Sony case was not just time-shifting, it was copying for personal use. People are allowed to make backup copies to play over and over again as long as it's for their own personal use.)
Stux's toot incorporated those images, but his criticism, the way he grouped them together; that was transformative as well as a critique.
@freemo You know.. There's "illegal" and there "illegal"
