Photoshop Will Get a 'Prepare as NFT' Option Soon

›

• Re:

  If they can just figure out how to convince them that the only way to keep their content credentials is a forever subscription, they'll be giggling with glee!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @05:27PM (#61929909)

    Okay, now I get what all this NFT crap is about. It's about shoving Digital Rights Management junk down our throats all over again, but doing it under a different name so we don't realize what they're doing straight away.

    • Re:

      Yes... "throats".

• by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @05:29PM (#61929915)

  No, it could be useful. I don't think selling silly meme files for crazy prices is the main point.

  Adobe is for 'creative professionals,' meaning, people who make money creating photos and videos. Not auctioning them for silly prices, but selling them to websites, stock photo libraries, magazines(!?), stuff like that. The chain of attribution / ownership is actually fundamantal to this. There are idiosyncratic methods like watermarking to do this with, but blockchain potentially could make sense for this.

  • Re:

    Just because NFT uses blockchain doesn't mean it's the same thing as blockchain. NFT is a (extremely dubious) way to turn digital assets into virtual money. It isn't about establishing chains of ownership for copyright purposes.

    It might be useful for Adobe to add some kind of copyright enforcing blockchain thing (MIGHT) but two things come to mind:

    1. NFT aint it.
    2. Suppose you have no problems. Suppose everything works fine. Now suppose you add Blockchain. Now you have two problems.

    • Re:

      It isn't about establishing chains of ownership for copyright purposes.

      Does NFT not work for that for the simple reason that tweaking one bit changes the checksum? Or...?

      • Re:

        No, it doesn't work for that for the same reason that a print out of random numbers doesn't work as a tax return.

        Sure, both are made of paper and have numbers on them. But "random numbers" is one application, and "Tax return" is a different one.

        Like I said, NFTs are an attempt to build a quasi currency. You can perhaps maybe kinda use a similar protocol to track copyrights, but that's not the same thing as using NFTs. The fact some dick out there (probably Martin Shkreli) has an NFT of the Mona Lisa do

        • Re:

          Sure, but it seems trivial to attach copyright ownership to NFT ownership.

          Of course, this is solving a problem that doesn't really exist, but it does make it pretty easy to transfer and prove ownership of a copyright.

      • Re:

        What does NFT add? If there's a copyright holder, there is a de facto central authority. I'm responsible for policing the use of my copyrighted material.

        Adobe's play here is to put a bandaid on NFT's complete inability to prove "ownership" of anything but the NFT itself. I can sell NFTs for any of the meme's, or the Mona Lisa, no problem. Adobe is proposing to offer their customers a kind of digital watermark that they can link in the NFT proving that the person offering it for sale is the actual creator.

• Re:

  More likely wants to be the software for the next Thomas Kincaide. Change a few spots, create a new NFT. He got $1000 on the paint his minimize wage slaves created. How much could someone make off the NFT.

• Re:

  Care to explain why none of Adobe's customers would mind if someone made nfts of their artwork and sold them? Because they're all perfectly selfless beings?

• Re:

  This feature already exists. It's called Digimarc. Which costs $50/yr per year per photo. Basically nobody uses Digimarc because it's a grift.

  NFT's are an even bigger grift, but at least Adobe is making some mechanism for verification that otherwise doesn't exist. So in theory if "everyone" starts using photoshop just to make their artwork NFT's, when the NFT's go bust, Adobe will just roll out their own version of Digimarc that they control.

  Win-win for Adobe.