CNN is selling public domain images as NFTs | Hacker News Reader

CNN is selling public domain images as NFTs

twitter.com

65 pointsdonohoe38 comments

Good thing purchasing an NFT doesn't actually mean anything

Agreed. Don’t see the problem with this. The joke is on the people buying these.

I have a couple issues as a third party:

1. NFTs and cryptocurrency have avoided being heavily regulated so far, and it seems businesses have begun pulling out there "history of fraud and market manipulation", textbooks. We have enough of an issue with bottom-to-top flows of wealth right now that just poo-pooing bad behavior because the people being scammed or stupid or arrogant doesn't exactly seem constructive. Especially when the public education system is what it is.

2. NFTs are the least efficient and convoluted ways you can solve the problem(s) at hand. It demands enormous amounts of power and it's use at any appreciative scale would overshadow the energy use of first-world individuals (PoS is still not here or being used by the major players, so it's not really an argument). And the hardware using this energy is expensive to produce, currently supply limited (hurting normal folks), and is regularly cycled. So while we're already struggling with climate change and environmental destruction, this technology aims to create an artificial spike that makes it even harder to address for no real benefit.

Proof of Stake (PoS) is here and it is being used by Ubisoft/Tezos. Literally the only blockchain left to convert is Ethereum, all the other NFT chains - Tezos, Algorand, Solana - are PoS.

Seriously criticising blockchain due to energy usage will age like milk, considering what’s happening. Everyone is in PoS expect Ethereum. Your whole argument here is just a criticism of the Ethereum blokchain.

It’s generally a good idea to state what an abbreviation is before using it. POS may mean Point of Sale, piece of shit, petty officers, etc. I think you mean “proof of stake” but it took a bit of digging around to guess that.

Altered for clarification you’re right.

I don't argue but I've read the same about Bitcoin.

Until courts start looking at the fraud behind it.

An NFT is a URL. Anyone can sell URLs pointing to anything.

I can mint and sell NFTs of something you hold the rights to and there's nothing legally wrong with it.

An NFT might point to a URL or it might represent a self-contained digital asset. Yes, these are Art NFTs which generally (but not always) point to an external URL.

I certainly don’t see the value in releasing NFTs that represent public domain images if they don’t come with actual utility.

>I certainly don’t see the value in releasing NFTs that represent public domain images if they don’t come with actual utility.

They're the same as any NFT really. Do people really care about the art quality of their apes? The whole gimmick is they're supposed to appreciate in value for some reason. So why couldn't a public domain image appreciate in value too?

Try minting some Disney NFTs and see how long that lasts.

What do you think would happen?

Disney would DMCA the NFT marketplace, like OpenSea or whatever. It's happened before, although I'm not sure if Disney specifically has done it or not.

OpenSea does delist nft's for DMCA issues. They require folks filing DMCA requests to fully dox themselves to keep competitors from griefing projects that aren't violating anyone's copyright, but they do respond on it.

What if there was no copyright material associated with the listing?

If you don’t actually present an image of a Disney character on the site, there is nothing preventing an NFT referring to one.

I think you might be right - it’s worth a try!

Until you have to defend yourself in court. Then it might not have been worth it.

Defend yourself for what? Posting a url with a hash attached to it?

Doesn't public domain mean that anyone in the public can use them. Last I checked, CNN is part of the public.

If people want to spend money on them, that's their decision.

Well Hubble's images are public domain, but it doesn't say if the archival footage pinned as the point of the NFT is CNN's own footage, which might be interesting for 'collectors'

I still think NFTs are stupid, but this title seems to be misleading either way.

I understood NFTs better after reading this, what seems to me, fair and objective article and afterwards really don't see much utility in them. I can see how they might serve a purpose in a very narrow, specialized set of circumstances.

https://www.ask.com/culture/what-are-non-fungible-tokens-nft...

Is this a joke? This article continues with the fully absurd “carbon narrative” that’s been imposed onto blockchain even though huge amounts of NFTs are being minted on the Tezos chain, which used orders of magnitude below Ethereum’s energy usage.

Minting an NFT on Tezos is something like turning your phone on in terms of energy usage. Please, let’s stop with the wild misinformation - not all NFTs are made the same way.

The ETH NFT scene is what it is I know a huge number of artists who don’t participate in it because it’s dumb af.

> Is this a joke?

I don't think it's fair to call it a joke, but if your intention is to shut down discussion that works. There is a robust discussion about blockchain energy usage which doesn't appear to be ideological, but I don't know enough yet to say.

There are multiple blockchain implementations, many of which now use virtually 1000x less energy than the previous gen. The whole point of the energy consumption was the so called Proof Of Work system, which has been replaced in multiple new blockchains (Polkadot, Tezos, Algorand) with Proof of Stake which has comparatively nil energy usage. Algorand has actually promised to be carbon Negative by buying up carbon credits.

The Carbon narrative at this point is really only applicable to two blockchains - Ethereum and Bitcoin. Bitcoin has virtually no smart contract usage, while Ethereum is now in the process of moving towards a Proof of Stake system. The carbon narrative is just that, a narrative.

I won’t even try to defend Bitcoin as I find it loathsome in every way.

Then it appears the complaint that NFTs using too much electricity that you see on Twitter a lot is about Ethereum doing proof of work, which it won't much longer as it transitions to proof of stake. I'm really interested in Chia, which is proof of space. I wouldn't give it much consideration except it's by Bram Cohen who did BitTorrent.

"which has been replaced" - no, because people are still using the 'old way' in which case it's besides the point: blockains are still needlessly consuming copious amounts of energy.

There is no 'carbon narrative' there is just a reality that BTC is consuming vast amounts of energy.

BTC is its own problem. I am talking only about NFTs and chains that make them possible. Major NFT markets now exist in Ethereum, Tezos, Solana and Algorand blockchains. Ethereum is the only one that has this problem and it’s working on ending it through an upgrade.

> Ethereum is the only one that has this problem and it’s working on ending it through an upgrade.

It might decline in popularity, but it's unlikely to actually end just because PoS is deployed. Someone will almost certainly rebrand the current PoW-based Ethereum chain+software and continue to maintain and promote it. This already happened once because the Ethereum principals rewrote history after their favorite smart contract turned out to have a major exploit [1] [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic

That chain, Ethereum Classic, is virtually worthless and unused next to Ethereum itself.

BTC usage of enormous amounts of electricity is not a joke, no.

Not relevant since BTC has nothing to do with NFTs.

I have a tangential question: what determines or guarantees the uniqueness of an NFT? My understanding is that the part of an NFT that is encoded on the blockchain is just some json (usually) metadata. Does the blockchain guarantee that same exact json metadata is not uploaded again?

No.

Technically I guess their are selling links to public domain images as NFTs which seems fair. I mean why would you not be allowed to link to public domain images?

if you use a public domain image as a starting point and edit it in ways that make it almost unrecognizable to the original image, is that legal?

At least they aren't selling other people's property?

So this is what it has gotten to for CNN? First peddling and spinning false news and now this?

Desperation for low viewing numbers and jumping into the scamming with NFTs much?

Well, scammers gonna scam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com