WTF is Crypto Art?

General art-related discussion.
papaver
Tech Team Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:51 pm
Contact:

Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:36 am

ygolohcysp wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:49 pm
acidburn wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:19 pm
mattlew69 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:05 pm
Did derivitive just cause a complete shill NFT project to pamp?

I blame them.

Its funny how it happened during NFT NYC, too. :roll:
he supported racism
Well that escalated quickly

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transacti ... 022-06-27/
dude is drymounted.
User avatar
pekalex
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:13 am
Location: Oregon

Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:58 am

I don't think this is an open and shut case against Ryder unless he sold exact copies of BAYC NFTs. From my understanding, he's using the same base imagery but the alterations are different so you could make the case that his NFTs are different enough from the original BAYC NFTs.

Ryder is also upfront by stating that "By purchasing this Ryder Ripps artwork in the form of an NFT, you understand that this is a new mint of BAYC imagery, re-contextualizing it for educational purposes, as protest and satirical commentary." Because of this disclaimer, I don't think the case that his NFT duped buyers will hold.
User avatar
acidburn
Art Daddy
Posts: 11751
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:06 pm

Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:41 am

pekalex wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:58 am
I don't think this is an open and shut case against Ryder unless he sold exact copies of BAYC NFTs. From my understanding, he's using the same base imagery but the alterations are different so you could make the case that his NFTs are different enough from the original BAYC NFTs.

Ryder is also upfront by stating that "By purchasing this Ryder Ripps artwork in the form of an NFT, you understand that this is a new mint of BAYC imagery, re-contextualizing it for educational purposes, as protest and satirical commentary." Because of this disclaimer, I don't think the case that his NFT duped buyers will hold.
he just reversed it. He has no case.

You can't take a Star Wars poster, change the colors, say this is a new poster of the Star Wars imagery as a protest and think Lucasfilm will not get that removed in 2 seconds.
User avatar
ygolohcysp
Art Expert
Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:57 pm

Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:53 am

pekalex wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:58 am
I don't think this is an open and shut case against Ryder unless he sold exact copies of BAYC NFTs. From my understanding, he's using the same base imagery but the alterations are different so you could make the case that his NFTs are different enough from the original BAYC NFTs.

Ryder is also upfront by stating that "By purchasing this Ryder Ripps artwork in the form of an NFT, you understand that this is a new mint of BAYC imagery, re-contextualizing it for educational purposes, as protest and satirical commentary." Because of this disclaimer, I don't think the case that his NFT duped buyers will hold.
Let's see, Ryder ripps bag vs YUGA bag. 😂
papaver
Tech Team Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:51 pm
Contact:

Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:55 am

pekalex wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:58 am
I don't think this is an open and shut case against Ryder unless he sold exact copies of BAYC NFTs. From my understanding, he's using the same base imagery but the alterations are different so you could make the case that his NFTs are different enough from the original BAYC NFTs.

Ryder is also upfront by stating that "By purchasing this Ryder Ripps artwork in the form of an NFT, you understand that this is a new mint of BAYC imagery, re-contextualizing it for educational purposes, as protest and satirical commentary." Because of this disclaimer, I don't think the case that his NFT duped buyers will hold.
The four factors of fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner's ability to profit from his or her original work by serving as a replacement for demand for that work are less likely to be fair uses.


sounds like he fails all four...
User avatar
ygolohcysp
Art Expert
Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:57 pm

Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:05 pm

But but, mah satire!!!
User avatar
pekalex
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:13 am
Location: Oregon

Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:52 pm

papaver wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:55 am
pekalex wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:58 am
I don't think this is an open and shut case against Ryder unless he sold exact copies of BAYC NFTs. From my understanding, he's using the same base imagery but the alterations are different so you could make the case that his NFTs are different enough from the original BAYC NFTs.

Ryder is also upfront by stating that "By purchasing this Ryder Ripps artwork in the form of an NFT, you understand that this is a new mint of BAYC imagery, re-contextualizing it for educational purposes, as protest and satirical commentary." Because of this disclaimer, I don't think the case that his NFT duped buyers will hold.
The four factors of fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner's ability to profit from his or her original work by serving as a replacement for demand for that work are less likely to be fair uses.


sounds like he fails all four...
-You could argue by Point 1 that Ryder is adding additional expression to the underlying ape imagery.
-I consider Point 2 to be completely irrelevant since theres no fictional/non-fictional debate for art.
-Regarding Point 3, the whole art world is full of people doing the same thing that Ryder Ripps is doing and they aren't getting sued. Look at these two images from Not Banksy next to the Banksy original. Not Banksy even signs the art with Banksy.

Image

Image

There are tons of examples like this like the 'My Kid Just Ruined My...' series by Ziegler T where he's taking existing art and just modifying it a little bit.

-If you accept Point 4 that he's exploiting the potential market for the work then there are tons of other artists that should be sued for piggybacking off famous artists. Look at all the people who make art similar to Damien Hirsts spots or use Keith Haring designs in their own art.

In my view, he only fails on point 4 and even then it raises questions about all of the other rip-off art thats out there.
papaver
Tech Team Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:51 pm
Contact:

Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:08 pm

pekalex wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:52 pm
-You could argue by Point 1 that Ryder is adding additional expression to the underlying ape imagery.
-I consider Point 2 to be completely irrelevant since theres no fictional/non-fictional debate for art.
-Regarding Point 3, the whole art world is full of people doing the same thing that Ryder Ripps is doing and they aren't getting sued. Look at these two images from Not Banksy next to the Banksy original. Not Banksy even signs the art with Banksy.

Image

Image

There are tons of examples like this like the 'My Kid Just Ruined My...' series by Ziegler T where he's taking existing art and just modifying it a little bit.

-If you accept Point 4 that he's exploiting the potential market for the work then there are tons of other artists that should be sued for piggybacking off famous artists. Look at all the people who make art similar to Damien Hirsts spots or use Keith Haring designs in their own art.

In my view, he only fails on point 4 and even then it raises questions about all of the other rip-off art thats out there.
def should be interesting how it all ends. but just more publicity for rider which makes him the winner in the short term.
User avatar
ygolohcysp
Art Expert
Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:57 pm

Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:48 pm

Banksy is a pretty poor example for multiple reasons, which, if you are up to speed, takes that "argument" right off the table.

Considering that each holder of the original BAYC collection owns the copyright to the image, I suspect there could even be a class action case possible against ripps.
User avatar
acidburn
Art Daddy
Posts: 11751
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:06 pm

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:11 pm

ygolohcysp wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:48 pm
Banksy is a pretty poor example for multiple reasons, which, if you are up to speed, takes that "argument" right off the table.

Considering that each holder of the original BAYC collection owns the copyright to the image, I suspect there could even be a class action case possible against ripps.
i asked a family member haha was just curious and he said that he doesn't think its possible.

i also made a mistake. He didnt even reverse it. He did the same layout. Nothing changed.
User avatar
Codeblue
Yaks 2 Much
Posts: 56016
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Expresso Beans

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:14 pm

Buncha legal experts up in hur. Where's the resident EB lawyers when ya need em amirite.
RupertPupkin wrote:I live by this rule and this rule alone: people are drymounting idiots.
User avatar
ygolohcysp
Art Expert
Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:57 pm

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:47 pm

Lol right I have no idea what I'm talking about, been rewatching better call Saul
User avatar
pekalex
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:13 am
Location: Oregon

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:51 pm

To acidburn's point, I wasn't aware that Ryder's version was exactly the same. I assumed he made some minor alterations to the base ape imagery. It'll be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. One of the reasons why BitTorrent trackers are difficult to take down is because linking to IP isn't a copyright violation.
User avatar
ygolohcysp
Art Expert
Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:57 pm

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:54 pm

"linking to ip" - now that IS an interesting piece of information for this situation
User avatar
ToolFanFromWayBack
Art Expert
Posts: 5810
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:05 am
Location: Houston, TX

Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:24 pm

I need more. Nothing seems to satisfy. I don't want it. I just need it. To feel, to breathe, to know I'm alive. - MJK
“People incapable of guilt usually have a good time.” - Rust Cohle
Presenting Codeblue's 30000th post -
Codeblue wrote:bump
Post Reply