'Disaster Girl' Makes $500,000 in NFT Sale of Her Viral Meme (axios.com) 85
Zoe Roth, the centerpiece of the "Disaster Girl" meme, has made nearly half a million dollars after selling the original copy as a non-fungible token (NFT), the New York Times reports. From a report: The market for ownership rights to digital art and media as NFTs has recently soared in popularity. Roth's photo was taken in 2005 when she was 4 years old. Her family went to go see a controlled fire in their Mebane, North Carolina, neighborhood. Her father entered the picture in a photo contest in 2007 and won, and for the past decade the "image [has been] endlessly repurposed as a vital part of meme canon," the Times writes. Most Americans are not at all familiar with NFTs, though they have become major buzzwords among asset managers and market participants. All NFTs contain a unique segment of digital code as an identifier of authenticity and are stored on the blockchain, a public digital ledger.
A controlled fire?! (Score:5, Funny)
You've ruined it forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Who buys NFTs? (Score:4, Funny)
Who has $500K to spend on a digital certificate of authenticity without an actual product? The Franklin Mint is kicking itself for missing this opportunity.
Re:Who buys NFTs? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We just had a story about "space tourism", which seems to be nothing more than a suborbital ballistic flight in a cramped tin can.
People have money for that.
At least with the NFT you have something physical that you could just turn around and sell next week.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he meant to type "psychological."
Re: (Score:2)
Who has $500K to spend on a digital certificate of authenticity without an actual product?
You mean the buyer did not even get the copyright? !
I think I understand blockchain. I even understand the maths for public key crypto. But WTF is the point of an NFT, if it just allows you to trade in a certificate that has no rights, no value. OK, bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but is useful as a medium of exchange. NFTs fail at that, being by definition non-fungible, and having no real constraints on supply. Disaster Girl could issue a thousand more NFTs for the same thing, Franklin Mint style. Am
Re: (Score:2)
Disaster Girl could issue a thousand more NFTs for the same thing, Franklin Mint style. Am I missing something?
An artist could in theory, but it would potentially be a breach of trust - depending upon how the NFT was represented when it was being offered for purchase; that might tick off the buyer resulting in demand for a refund or lawsuit against the seller.
It's possible the commercial terms of the sale did not promise the Artist would not do that; But if they were deceptive and implied Uniqueness that th
Re: (Score:2)
Disaster Girl's dad, who is also her manager, made it
clear that he and his daughter will retain full copyright
over the original photo.
So the person who spent $500K for the NFT actually
bought absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
International drug dealers who have trouble laundering all their money.
Re: (Score:3)
Its an old meme but it works https://m.imgur.com/gallery/XK... [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and you found her attractive as a child?
says more about you
What did he buy? (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this basically just something that says "I bought the disaster girl meme", something very similar to buying a piece of paper from some company that says you get to name this star?
He didn't need to buy an NFT to buy the copyright. So did he really buy the copyright but they just said "...with an NFT" and now the big story is about the NFT which is pointless and really someone paid $500k for the copyright to a picture?
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothesis: People who believe that these things are to stick around forever might see this as their shot at immortalizing themselves in such a block chain, which they otherwise could not achieve by themselves. So they pay money to have their name tacked onto something that's already popular.
Re: (Score:1)
Being immortalized as one of the 'first so stupid' just doesn't make sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buyer didn't buy copyright. They bought a non-fungible token (NFT). Fungible is when an object can be replaced with another thing... any dollar works as good as any other dollar. A sixpack of beer is fungible. Lots and Lots of things are pretty fungible. But art and collectibles can have intrinsic, unique value.
You know how anyone can have a copy of the Mona Lisa, but there's just the one actual Mona Lisa? That's this idea.
You know how an artist can make and sign 250 limited edition prints? And how or
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right - I went back and reread it, I though tit mentioned he did buy it but they actually retained it. Apparently, however, they get 10% of all future sales. Is that future sales of the image for commercial use, or is that 10% of all future sales of the NFT?
This is even more retarded than I thought if all he gets is literally the right to sell the fucking NFT, which they they get to scrape 10% off of.
The difference with your example is there is no actual "thing" to be limited. The NFT itself _i
Re: (Score:2)
10% of future re-sales of the NFT.
However.. It's something called a "Post-Sale" restriction [wikipedia.org] on the new owner of property, and it is likely not legally enforceable in a consumer contract where the buyer purchases an item. In the US, there these concepts called the First-Sale Doctrine, and Patent Exhaustion.
Corporations such as Printer Manufacturers have already attempted this sort of nonsense with things such as trying to use Post-Sale restrictions and legal
Re:What did he buy? (Score:4, Informative)
The thing that's unique is the token. Not the photograph.
So no, it's not like those other things. They have value because of rarity combined with the perceived artistic or cultural value they have.
The token has value purely and only because some mug was stupid enough to hand over cash for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You know how anyone can have a copy of the Mona Lisa, but there's just the one actual Mona Lisa? That's this idea.
Great idea, but NFTs don't provide this. There's one physical canvas in the world that da Vinci himself modified to create the Mona Lisa. Anyone can make a new blockchain that says you "own" the Mona Lisa. It's like writing down someone's name in a book and saying that it proves they're the one true owner.
Re: (Score:3)
First, Good for Zoë for making some money out of the deal.
But I have to wonder about the buyer, did he have an extra hole in his head or did he just think his house might be next?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that she made money from it when it's her father that owns the copyright on the photograph.
Feels like tax shenanigans to me.
Re: (Score:2)
So did he really buy the copyright but they just said
A NFT does not come with a copyright - Buying a NFT may make you the legal possessor of a copy with a non-exclusive license to personally consume the work in private (I.E. not to display or use commercially). The only way a transfer of copyright happens is if there is an explicit contract or offer at the time of purchase by the rightsholder naming the copyrights or a license to the copyrights and providing for assignment to the buyer... The purchase
Re: (Score:3)
The actual auction page is here: https://foundation.app/Disaste... [foundation.app]
No mention of copyright. In fact it appears that all he bought is a JSON metadata file and an associated URL on someone else's website.
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmYBvcJMa... [ipfs.io]
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeQ6c5Hd... [ipfs.io]
Hope this "IPFS" website never goes down or his purchase will be worthless!
Re: (Score:3)
Hope this "IPFS" website never goes down or his purchase will be worthless!
Interplanetary File System is not a website and does not use the hypertext transfer protocol. It is a global distributed hash table running over a custom protocol, much like the DHT associated with Bittorrent but with an independent namespace. There are HTTP gateways into it, one of which is provided by Cloudflare, but for direct access you use a client which is not a web browser.
Sometimes, Slashdot....
Re: What did he buy? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The buyer definitely did not purchase the copyright.
Her Dad made that very clear.
My favorite part of this story (Score:2)
My favorite part of this story is every place I've seen it posted just posts the original meme image along with it.
What exactly does the NFT owner own? Do they get royalties from this use of the image?
Or do they just own a sort of "trading card" that says "Disaster Girl" on it and that has no really actual value beyond the novelty of it being an NFT, that's going to drop in value to nothing almost instantly as people begin to realize that there's nothing preventing anyone from making exact duplicates of the
Re:My favorite part of this story (Score:5, Informative)
The NFT owner owns an entry in a blockchain. That entry contains a URL that points to the image. That is all - a link encoded in a blockchain.
Re:My favorite part of this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My favorite part of this story (Score:4, Insightful)
Or even a different URL!
Re: (Score:2)
Or the image at the URL being replaced with one of the internets other fine memes, for the owner to look into.
Re: (Score:2)
And best of all, there's nothing stopping someone else, or multiple someone elses, from setting up one or more competing system. Nothing says the same URL can't be written to blockchains multiple times.
Or even a different URL!
The URL isn't particularly relevant. The hash of the file is the unique identifier and it can not be changed. The hash is derived from the content. Download the jpg from the URL, then reupload it to IPFS and the locator you will get back is exactly the same as the one that already exists. The IPFS client will treat your upload attempt as a no-op.
IPFS "directories" are a list of hashes and arbitrary names. Every file has a hash which is determined by the contents of the file. You can construct a "direc
Link doesn't have to be valid (Score:2, Insightful)
The URL does not have to be valid.
Nor does the image at what URL points to have to continue to be there, the image can be deleted as the owner of the NFT does not actually own the image.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So what happens in 10 years when the domain expires, and the URL redirects to Goatse?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who can afford what they spent has people who can look into that kind of thing for them.
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens in 10 years when the domain expires, and the URL redirects to Goatse?
The IPFS hash is not tied to a domain. It will persist as long as people keep running IPFS clients to maintain the IPFS distributed hash table. The hash and nft.jpg at its location will continue to be accessible even after ipfs.io is abandoned. The same hash can be reached through the Cloudflare gateway via https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ip... [cloudflare-ipfs.com] It's the same image either way. It's the hash that matters. Hijacking interesting hashes into IPFS using a bogus IPFS gateway that actually serves up something els
Re: (Score:2)
People don't propagate bad locator data like that, not even for the lulz.
Maybe not for lulz, but for half a million dollars?
Hell yeah.
Re:My favorite part of this story (Score:5, Informative)
They own the URL to the meme which I believe is pointing right here: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeQ6c5Hd... [ipfs.io]
That gives:
* That gives them the ability to say they own the URL to the meme created by the subject or someone who is impersonating the subject.
* The ability to resale it as the above
That does not:
* Give them copyright to the photo, which actually belongs to the photographer and not the subject.
* Give exclusive use to the photo either in terms of access, viewing, or making monetary profit from derivative works, that right falls under copyright law.
* Give them access to the photo once the hosting site ipfs.io shuts down in a few years
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't sell it without without paying a commission to the previous owner, then have you even bought it at all? Or just a 90% stake in it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very common element of copyright contract law. Books, movies, and music often have contracts that effectively sell the rights to a work in return for a percentage of royalties like that. Like Warner Bros Studios owns a collection of rights for the Harry Potter IP, they sold that to JKR in exchange for a monetary sum including a percentage of profits. They own the Harry Potter movies even though a collection of entities including JKR will get a percentage of the revenue.
The only aspect about it that
Re: (Score:2)
contracts that effectively sell the rights to a work in return for a percentage of royalties like that
This probably is not legally enforceable with the sale individual copies; It would be a Post-Sale restraint [wikipedia.org] on a consumer transaction.
These types of contracts work but only because the Copyright being sold already contains legal rights to royalties - the seller retains an interest in the sale, and 100% of the rights are not included in the sale.
In the US the Copyright Holder or Patent Holder does not reta
Re: My favorite part of this story (Score:2)
That gives them the ability to say they own the URL to the meme created by the subject or someone who is impersonating the subject.
It's not even a good url, like strongbad.com/trogdor, it's something between a url shortener and a torrent file. With nothing keeping anyone from starting a dogeipfs network and selling the same stuff again. I don't get it, but selling dumb things to rich people, ok I get it.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't really follow NFT.
So if I understand correctly, they have the right to say they own the content in a particular URL, as long as that URL exists.
It doesn't really give them the copyright or other associated rights with the content hosted there.
So what happens if someone hacks / changes the content and puts up tub girl at that link?
Does that mean the NFT owner now owns the content of the tub girl image, since that's what it shows in that link (after being hacked)?
It's interesting to watch this from th
Re: (Score:2)
True except for:
That does not:
* Give them access to the photo once the hosting site ipfs.io shuts down in a few years
ipfs.io is not the hosting site. The actual host(s) are somewhere in the IPFS distributed hash table. The data could be coming from any machine in the world, and that can shift and shift again as the DHT rebalances itself. Even if (when) the ipfs.io gateway into IPFS is abandoned, as long as people are still running IPFS clients, the data will still persist and still be accessible via the IPFS protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Bragging rights. It's no different than owners of old paintings that have prints for sale for $10 in every flea market around the world. Well it is different, in that the copyright for the original image is still enforceable, but I'm not sure the NFT holder gets the original copyright to enforce it, just the certificate of "ownership" of the original copy.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does the NFT owner own? Do they get royalties from this use of the image?
When you buy an original painting, do you get royalties from people who print copies, or does the artist?
You're over thinking it. Buying NFT is as pointless as buying art. Add in stupidity from blockchain and you have your answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Or do they just own a sort of "trading card" that says "Disaster Girl" on it
You got it.
The NFT only contains a copy of the name of the image, not the image itself.
Source? (Score:4, Informative)
The very first thing that the Axios link does is give credit to the NYT post, as indeed the OP did but in this case without actually linking to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0... [nytimes.com]
Serious level of contempt for humanity. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She is donating most of the money to charities. Or so she says. So, win win, I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
If you would rather burn your money ...
Buying an NFT does not "burn" any money. The same amount of money continues to exist, it is just transferred from one person to another. Nothing is consumed.
Re: Serious level of contempt for humanity. (Score:2)
Intelligence. Intelligence is consumed.
Re: (Score:1)
No. One's reputation as a non-sucker is consumed.
More NFT spam scam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if the scam of NFTs are current hot news in the tech space, and its of interest to people how far this stupidity goes.
I mean if you think every mention of a product is a slashvertisement, every mention of bitcoin is a contribution to a pump and dump scam, you don't like how recent technical curiosities are covered on slashdot, and you are sick of the political Trump / biden posts, why would you even visit Slashdot?
Wait are you one of those people who only reads Slashdot for the ads?
Relevant Comic (Score:2)
https://ifunny.co/picture/great-i-lt-buy-it-for-a-thousand-dollars-selling-u6VmvJoT8 [ifunny.co]
Ultimate simping? (Score:2)
Ultimate simping?
Who bought it? (Score:2)
I can't find it: does the article mention who bought it? Because all of the big sales I've read about for this absolute tripe have been purchased by those who are either pushing said tripe or benefit from it being pushed. (The tweet @Jack sold was bought by a CEO of a blockchain company.) If it's not such a crony here, then I assume it's some uber-rich person throwing around money. The article also quotes the agent for Roth, Ben Lashes, who comments that some of his other clients (subjects of other popular
Re: Who bought it? (Score:2)
URLs are not forever (Score:5, Insightful)
URLs are not forever. The only value of an NFT is the URL. The entry in the blockchain for the NFT contains a URL and that's all. And that URL is not going to last as long as a painting on canvas.
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes me wonder, do you have the right to sue if the URL gets taken down? I mean presumably you bought the URL with the expectation that it would point to a thing. If the Disaster Girl domain gets bought by a scammer can you sue her for $500000 for effectively "stealing" your asset?
Re: (Score:2)
do you have the right to sue if the URL gets taken down?
Nope.
He bought a copy of the URL, not what it points to.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be so sure on the nope part. The URL derives its value from what it points to, and you definitely can sue someone (and win) for doing something to massively devalue your property.
Not Original (Score:4)
Money Laundering Token (Score:2)
Yea, this is definitely money laundering being spammed here on /.
Another scam (Score:1)
Yet another pokeman scheme. (Score:2)