- Feb 16, 2020
Upon seeing this post and the photo of Kate, I wondered why you were posting some random model in Katie's thread.At Fendi Couture S/S 21. She looks different from what I remembered and a bit different from that video in post #342.
Lila also walked the show.
Kate looks botched, which is sad since she looked absolutely stunning in her British Vogue video from November 2020.
Just read in an article that Kate is auctioning a video of herself sleeping online? I'm really not savvy with cryptocurrency web stuff, I have never even heard of an NFT before, but to me this seems so fucking odd and creepy. Anybody care to enlighten me here?
(non-fungible tokens) - one-of-a-kind assets that are linked to photos, videos, audio and other types of digital files, and can be bought and sold.
"Images in the public domain are owned by everyone by definition,” said Amit Katwala, the senior editor of Wired UK. “NFTs are attaching the notion of ownership to something that can’t really be owned – you don’t own the image itself but you own the right to call yourself the owner of that image"
The digital terrain should be a place where women can share their likeness as they choose, controlling the usage of their image and receiving whatever potential capital attached,” she tweeted. “Instead, the internet has more frequently served as a space where others exploit and distribute images of women’s bodies without their consent and for another’s profit.”
She said she wanted to use the new medium of NFTs to set a precedent for women and ownership online through a blockchain – a set of digital contracts – that “allows women to have ongoing authority over their image and to receive rightful compensation for its usage and distribution”.
I mean it’s perfectly reasonable for a model to expect additional compensation if her image is used past the agreed upon terms. It really depends. If the contract didn’t include an unlimited buyout in perpetuity then the agency/model should absolutely receive further compensation if the client wants to add on additional usage. A lot of clients will sneakily try to get around this so I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to want more control and autonomy over the use of your likeness.
Thankyou!The article you linked explains NFTs pretty well imo:
Bitcoin etc are types of fungible tokens, they can be exchanged/substituted for other bitcoins (the same way that normal currency can). NFTs are basically tokens that attach to unique, one-of-a kind assets, i.e they are non-fungible. Think of it like a digital receipt /proof that you own a particular asset People think buying and selling NFTs will be like a new form of art collecting: you want to own the original asset (whether it be a meme, photo, tweet etc) and will pay a high price for it.
The one thing that I don't quite get about NFTs is why people would want to pay so much money simply just to call themselves the "owner" of a particular asset. From a copyright/intellectual property perspective, unless the laws change, the owner of an NFT doesn't own the copyright in the item that the NFT attaches to. So they don't acquire all the rights that the copyright owner has, such as the right to control the distribution and reproduction of the asset. I understand why people buy physical works of art even though they don't own the underlying copyright but when we're talking about digital assets, it doesn't make sense to me. Digital assets are easily distributed across the internet. Like the "overly attached girlfriend" meme which was sold as an NFT for over $400k according to the article. What is the point in owning an original digital asset if you don't also own the underlying copyright in the asset?
Anyway back to the article: emrata had me rolling my eyes once again:
OMG. She's a "model"! The whole point of which is to enable others to profit from her image. Models pose for photos, and then the photographer/company that commissioned the photo gets to decide how it is used. She was compensated when the original photo was taken (for her time), does she expect to receive ongoing compensation every time a photo of her is used? No, that money (quite rightfully) goes to the photographer or whoever the photographer sold the image rights to. Argh she's so annoying.
The whole concept still dumbfounds me. I think it's the whole possessive nature of it, of course Mossy is consenting but somebody willing to pay £10k+ for a video of a person, purely exclusive to them, is disturbing surely?