Keep your top 10 lists and popularity contests. Give me a forgotten portfolio, endless pages to dig through, and the adrenaline rush of finding a hidden grail on my own.
17
8
47
480
Finally understood how 6529 platform works with its voting and stuff.
*Grabs Pitchfork*
I'll stick to collecting straight from the artists then. Thanks, but no thanks.
*Grabs Pitchfork*
I'll stick to collecting straight from the artists then. Thanks, but no thanks.
19
1
56
547
Aziz retweeted
Can an artist sell prints of an artwork they already sold as a 1/1 NFT?
This debate keeps coming up, so here’s what the law says (US), how the traditional art world handles it, and where artists can actually get into trouble.
The law
Under US copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 202), wning the copyright are two separate things. Selling the object, even the one-and-only original, does not transfer the copyright unless there’s a written agreement that says so.
An NFT works the same way. Unless the sale includes a license or a transfer, the buyer owns the token, and the artist keeps the copyright: the right to reproduce, sell copies, and make derivatives. By default, the collector gets the right to display the work for personal use, and not much more.
This cuts both ways. The artist can make prints. The collector can’t sell prints without the artist’s permission.
The traditional art world
This is old territory. Painters have sold reproduction prints of originals hanging in collectors’ homes for generations. Buying the canvas has never meant controlling reproductions. Collectors pay for the original, and the original stays the original.
What’s different with NFTs
With a painting, a print is clearly not the original. With a digital work, the token and the image are the same file, so a print can feel like dilution to the holder. That concern is real, but it’s a market and trust issue, not a legal one. “1/1” describes the token, not exclusive rights to the image.
Marketplace licenses
Check the license on the token, because it can override the default.
Many marketplaces’ terms say little or nothing about licensing, which leaves the default in place: the artist keeps the rights.
@objktcom lets artists choose a license at mint, including All Rights Reserved and CC0. CC0 puts the work in the public domain, so anyone can print it, including the collector.
Some licenses, like @a16z’s “Can’t Be Evil” set, range from personal use only up to exclusive commercial rights for the holder. If you minted under an exclusive license, you gave up the right to sell prints.
So can artists sell prints?
Legally, by default, yes. No US court has ruled that a 1/1 NFT sale blocks the artist from making prints, at least none I could find. Whether it’s a good idea depends on what you told your collectors, and some collectors will value your work less if prints show up without warning.
Where artists can get in trouble
- Promising exclusivity in a post, a Discord, or a token description (“this will be the only copy ever,” “no prints, ever”) and then selling prints. That can support claims of misrepresentation, fraud, or consumer protection violations.
- Minting under a license that gave the holder exclusive rights, then printing anyway. That’s a breach.
- Selling near-identical versions as new NFTs after implying the original was unique.
- Selling “limited edition” prints without following state print laws. California, New York, and other states require disclosures like edition size and whether it’s a reproduction.
- Printing more than the edition size you announced.
- Calling a reproduction an original.
Best practice
Put your print policy in the token description before the sale, something like: “Artist retains reproduction rights. Physical prints may be offered.” Then nobody has a reason to argue. For older pieces, some artists give holders something extra, like a free artist’s proof or a small capped edition.
Clear terms protect artists and collectors alike.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If there’s a real dispute over a specific piece, the token’s license and the listing text are what matter.
This debate keeps coming up, so here’s what the law says (US), how the traditional art world handles it, and where artists can actually get into trouble.
The law
Under US copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 202), wning the copyright are two separate things. Selling the object, even the one-and-only original, does not transfer the copyright unless there’s a written agreement that says so.
An NFT works the same way. Unless the sale includes a license or a transfer, the buyer owns the token, and the artist keeps the copyright: the right to reproduce, sell copies, and make derivatives. By default, the collector gets the right to display the work for personal use, and not much more.
This cuts both ways. The artist can make prints. The collector can’t sell prints without the artist’s permission.
The traditional art world
This is old territory. Painters have sold reproduction prints of originals hanging in collectors’ homes for generations. Buying the canvas has never meant controlling reproductions. Collectors pay for the original, and the original stays the original.
What’s different with NFTs
With a painting, a print is clearly not the original. With a digital work, the token and the image are the same file, so a print can feel like dilution to the holder. That concern is real, but it’s a market and trust issue, not a legal one. “1/1” describes the token, not exclusive rights to the image.
Marketplace licenses
Check the license on the token, because it can override the default.
Many marketplaces’ terms say little or nothing about licensing, which leaves the default in place: the artist keeps the rights.
@objktcom lets artists choose a license at mint, including All Rights Reserved and CC0. CC0 puts the work in the public domain, so anyone can print it, including the collector.
Some licenses, like @a16z’s “Can’t Be Evil” set, range from personal use only up to exclusive commercial rights for the holder. If you minted under an exclusive license, you gave up the right to sell prints.
So can artists sell prints?
Legally, by default, yes. No US court has ruled that a 1/1 NFT sale blocks the artist from making prints, at least none I could find. Whether it’s a good idea depends on what you told your collectors, and some collectors will value your work less if prints show up without warning.
Where artists can get in trouble
- Promising exclusivity in a post, a Discord, or a token description (“this will be the only copy ever,” “no prints, ever”) and then selling prints. That can support claims of misrepresentation, fraud, or consumer protection violations.
- Minting under a license that gave the holder exclusive rights, then printing anyway. That’s a breach.
- Selling near-identical versions as new NFTs after implying the original was unique.
- Selling “limited edition” prints without following state print laws. California, New York, and other states require disclosures like edition size and whether it’s a reproduction.
- Printing more than the edition size you announced.
- Calling a reproduction an original.
Best practice
Put your print policy in the token description before the sale, something like: “Artist retains reproduction rights. Physical prints may be offered.” Then nobody has a reason to argue. For older pieces, some artists give holders something extra, like a free artist’s proof or a small capped edition.
Clear terms protect artists and collectors alike.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If there’s a real dispute over a specific piece, the token’s license and the listing text are what matter.
gm!
question for NFT collectors 🖼️
how do you feel about artists selling physical prints of their NFT artworks on a separate platform?
not reselling the same NFT elsewhere, but making the artwork available as limited edition prints, 1/1s or open editions, posters, etc.
do you see it as a natural extension of an artist’s work, or does it somehow affect the value or exclusivity of the NFT you own?
as a collector myself, i personally don’t mind it at all, especially when it comes to editions. but tbh, i’ve never collected anything REALLY expensive (yet hehe), so i wonder if i’d feel differently if i had 👀
genuinely curious to hear your thoughts 🤍
9
14
36
856
Some people need a microphone. An artist just picks up a brush and makes the entire room listen.
99
47
218
2,921
Calling my dog "Arty"
SITUATION DETECTED: Warhound launched from stealth today with a $200M seed at a $1.2B valuation. Ben Lamm and Palmer Luckey are cloning gene-edited bio-enhanced dogs and equipping them with custom Anduril vests, goggles, and sensors for the military and law enforcement.
12
2
76
1,115
Aziz retweeted
🚨ATTENTION: @SuperRare has sent me the 0.16E royalty from the secondary sale on Saturday. Special thanks to @SuperRareJohn who personally made things right.
I’d like to pay it forward. Unfortunately my collecting budget has been decimated, but I’d like to collect 3 pieces of art for .05E that is minted on Superrare. Can be an edition; my only requirement is that it cost .05E and minted on SR. This is a shill thread. Will post what I collect tonight! Please share
I’d like to pay it forward. Unfortunately my collecting budget has been decimated, but I’d like to collect 3 pieces of art for .05E that is minted on Superrare. Can be an edition; my only requirement is that it cost .05E and minted on SR. This is a shill thread. Will post what I collect tonight! Please share
32
19
108
3,361
Comfy in art...
> can’t own stonks with capex slowing
> can’t own crypto with quantum and ai risk
> can’t browse the internet cause everything is hacked
> can’t own software cause everything is hacked
> can’t own gold cause alchemy is solved
> can’t own bonds as inflation and crowding out hurting it
> mfw
20
1
92
1,263
You're not gonna be pleasing everyone in this space, so might as well be polarizing either in your art, persona, or in both.
Loved or despised, you'd be leaving a scar on the room instead of blending into the drywall.
Loved or despised, you'd be leaving a scar on the room instead of blending into the drywall.
88
28
230
4,113
Welcome to Web3! Here's your user-friendly guide to your state in a simplified manner:
77
35
138
1,713
Aziz retweeted
Forever Wrapper now supports every @foundation 1/1 artist collection.
300,000+ NFTs across 65,000 collections, an era where thousands of creators thrived. Don’t lose their art to IPFS rot.
Art should outlive its platform.
Check your wallet today 👉 forever.kusari.org
300,000+ NFTs across 65,000 collections, an era where thousands of creators thrived. Don’t lose their art to IPFS rot.
Art should outlive its platform.
Check your wallet today 👉 forever.kusari.org
5
18
33
904
Collecting art isn’t a gamble. A gamble means there’s a chance you walk away empty-handed; when you buy a piece, you already took the prize home.
155
66
345
6,197
To avoid chaos for my little brain, I ended up sending random pieces to most of my following (that I collected from) list on Objkt. Here's to more occasions in the future!
*Check Your Wallets* 🫡
*Check Your Wallets* 🫡
I'll be sending most of the batch to those who are interested in collecting any of Fer's amazing work. Stay tuned!
69
17
174
4,271
I'll be sending most of the batch to those who are interested in collecting any of Fer's amazing work. Stay tuned!
Well, @_JustAziz_ came in like a legend and cleared out all remaining available works 😅
I guess you all better go place offers on secondary now 🤣
Thank you so much Aziz 🫂
51
8
157
4,586
Aziz retweeted
@_JustAziz_ lol it came from the mathematical definition of transient where things change with time.
The first dynamic art we made was with @benstraussphoto ‘s photos where they would change over the course of the day.
The name stuck even if a bit ironic
opensea.io/collection/tra…
The first dynamic art we made was with @benstraussphoto ‘s photos where they would change over the course of the day.
The name stuck even if a bit ironic
opensea.io/collection/tra…
2
2
19
300
The Artist was searching for an idea to create, not realizing their mind was already a world-class gallery and their thoughts were the exhibition.
77
27
199
2,406
Aziz retweeted
Fun fact: the name Transient came from the mathematical concept of transient systems: time-dependent equations that evolve. If you didn’t know already, Marco and I both have backgrounds in mechanical and aerospace engineering. So to us, transient naturally meant something different to us than the conventional definition of the word.
We actually first started experimenting with dynamic art that changes over time based on external data or stimuli (the first collection we launched was called Transient Gallery using my landscape photography in 2021). Dynamic art itself can be stored permanently onchain, or in a decentralized manner, but the experience and the work can still be transient.
We actually first started experimenting with dynamic art that changes over time based on external data or stimuli (the first collection we launched was called Transient Gallery using my landscape photography in 2021). Dynamic art itself can be stored permanently onchain, or in a decentralized manner, but the experience and the work can still be transient.
So here's something that's been bothering me for a while, why the platform is called "Transient" when the art is on the blockchain forever? 👀
8
7
52
1,293
Please @SuperRare fix your royalties for the artists. It's basically the foundational moat of NFTs.
2nd time this has sold, 2nd time I’ve received no royalties for it. This originally part of the reverse bidders edition experiment where I used Ethereums switch from pos to pow as way of differentiating between the editions and the 1/1. In the last 10-20 1/1 secondary sales and hundreds upon hundreds of secondary edition sales, I’ve collected royalties once.
2
5
58
1,031