"Disaster Girl" makes $500K off her meme

[Egomaniac]

Source:

The name Zoë Roth might not ring any bells. But chances are you’ve seen her photo.

One Saturday morning in 2005, when Ms. Roth was 4 years old, her family went to look at a house on fire in their neighborhood in Mebane, N.C. Firefighters had intentionally set the blaze as a controlled fire, so it was a relaxed affair: Neighbors gathered and firefighters allowed children to take turns holding the hose.

Ms. Roth remembers watching the flames engulf the house when her father, an amateur photographer, asked her to smile. With her hair askew and a knowing look in her eyes, Ms. Roth flashed a devilish smirk as the fire roared behind her. “Disaster Girl” was born.

In the years since Dave Roth, Zoë’s father, entered it in a photo contest in 2007 and won, the image has been edited into various disasters from history, with Ms. Roth grinning impishly as a meteor wipes out the dinosaurs or the Titanic sinks in the distance. Now, after more than a decade of having her image endlessly repurposed as a vital part of meme canon, Ms. Roth has sold the original copy of her meme as a nonfungible token, or NFT, for nearly half a million dollars.

The meme sold for 180 Ether, a form of cryptocurrency, at an auction on April 17 to a user identified as @3FMusic. As with any currency, the value of Ether fluctuates, but as of Thursday, 180 Ether was valued at more than $495,000. The Roths retained the copyright and will receive 10 percent of future sales.

[Belize]

God NFTs are the dumbest scam I think I've seen in a long time.
Christ almighty.

[Edge-]

God NFTs are the dumbest scam I think I've seen in a long time.
Christ almighty.

Great for artists (of all varieties) in the internet age where original ownership of digital work can be difficult to prove. But like, that's about it. Why the fuck does Jack Dorsey need $3M for "ownership" of his first tweet? Did he need some play money for his weekend with mountains of cocaine and dungeons of hookers?

[Gaidax]

And why not. Great pic, used by many for many years.

I'm cool with them getting $$ for that.

[Edge-]

Nice. Hopefully her parents give her a good portion of it... or at least pay for her college.

She's over 18 now so her parents shouldn't have any involvement with this transaction (unless her father wants to be a dick about it). Now just gotta convert the Eth to $'s so it's actually usable.

[Elegiac]

Great for artists (of all varieties) in the internet age where original ownership of digital work can be difficult to prove.

So does a watermark.

Nothing about NFTs help you prove original ownership of a piece, lol.

[Edge-]

So does a watermark.

My understanding is that it's not remotely the same level of security/authenticity of original ownership (or transferal of that original ownership) when it comes to digital content across different formats.

Nothing about NFTs help you prove original ownership of a piece, lol.

The blockchain does based on my understanding of how the system functions with NFT's. It's functionally the digital equivilent of provenance for physical works of art in a sense.

[PC2]

That's cool that you can now monetize things in this way. If my image was memed a lot then I'd want to cash in on it as well.

[Santti]

Wait, what? How does that work? What, exactly, does the person have, when he purchased it? It's still allowed to edit it to make more memes out of it, right? And even if it wasn't, who the hell would pay for the rights to use it? :S

[Edge-]

What, exactly, does the person have, when he purchased it?

The only official/original digital version of that image.

It's still allowed to edit it to make more memes out of it, right? And even if it wasn't, who the hell would pay for the rights to use it? :S

Yes, you can still meme it for free. You can still screenshot it and share it and do whatever. It's just about the "original" work itself, not any derivative works that come from it. I don't think there's anything relating to licensing for NFT's.

[dwarven]

God NFTs are the dumbest scam I think I've seen in a long time.
Christ almighty.

People once said bitcoin was a scam. Other people took it seriously and have made good money.

[Santti]

The only official/original digital version of that image.



Yes, you can still meme it for free. You can still screenshot it and share it and do whatever. It's just about the "original" work itself, not any derivative works that come from it. I don't think there's anything relating to licensing for NFT's.

Okay. But what's that about Roths getting 10% out of future sales? How does that work?

Am I being thick?

[Elegiac]

My understanding is that it's not remotely the same level of security/authenticity of original ownership (or transferal of that original ownership) when it comes to digital content across different formats.

Which isn't correct as the "authenticity of original ownership" provided by NFTs can be defeated by means of a screenshot, something you typically can't do with physical works since the certificate tends to actually come with...you know...the original work.

Congrats, you have a blockchain saying you own this work. Now what?

At least watermarking has the additional step of having to try and shop it out before you resell the piece, lol.

The blockchain does based on my understanding of how the system functions with NFT's. It's functionally the digital equivilent of provenance for physical works of art in a sense.

Again, this is very much a "this how how the blockchain works" without actually delving into why this particular application of blockchain is good or even necessary. The reality is that NFTs just enable people with the money to throw at them to steal original work from smaller creators and putting up a financial barrier to actually proving provenance of the original, to say nothing of the environmental costs.

Basically, NFTs are the equivalent of bots with a "I want this on a shirt" trigger phrase that steal artwork from digital creators to resell on t-shirts, except a million times worse for the environment.

[Edge-]

Okay. But what's that about Roths getting 10% out of future sales? How does that work?

If the person that owns the NFT sells it (as any art collector can do), the original creator gets a cut of whatever that person sells it for. If the second owner sells it to a third person, the creator gets a cut of that sale as well etc. etc.

Which seems like a good way of resolving issues within the art world now where artists may sell a work for very little that gains incredible value over time and is resold, but the artist never benefits from the additional value their work accrued. Or the estate of the artist, if they are deceased.

[dwarven]

Yes, you can still meme it for free. You can still screenshot it and share it and do whatever. It's just about the "original" work itself, not any derivative works that come from it. I don't think there's anything relating to licensing for NFT's.

It only seems that way, but that's technically not true from a legal standpoint. The owner of the original work retains the copyright and can make a copyright claim and have derivative works taken down if they don't fall under fair use. It's just that that rarely happens because memes become so prolific on so many sites that it wouldn't be worth the effort to do so.

[Elegiac]

It only seems that way, but that's technically not true from a legal standpoint. The owner of the original work retains the copyright and can make a copyright claim and have derivative works taken down if they don't fall under fair use.

And that is a very big "if", since memes are largely parodical which is most definitely covered under fair use.

The NFT proving ownership of this photo is functionally worthless.

[dwarven]

Oops, double posted.

[Nnyco]

Fuck NFT's and anyone involved with em.

[dwarven]

And that is a very big "if", since memes are largely parodical which is most definitely covered under fair use.

It depends on a lot of factors and each case would probably vary quite a bit. For example, if the creator spent a lot of time creating the meme, or spent a lot of time and effot creating a work that spawned a very significant meme that the creator could generate revenue from (like the work in the OP), then the law would almost definitely favor the creator. But, that also doesn't mean a lot of effort need have been put into a work either. I'm just using that as an obvious example. The onus would be on the infringing party to prove fair use if it came to a legal battle.

[Edge-]

Which isn't correct as the "authenticity of original ownership" provided by NFTs can be defeated by means of a screenshot, something you typically can't do with physical works since the certificate tends to actually come with...you know...the original work.

It's not supposed to "stop" screenshots. That's literally not the point.

Congrats, you have a blockchain saying you own this work. Now what?

Now you can resell it if you want. Or you can own it, knowing you have the real version and, much like artwork itself, all other copies aren't worth shit and have no value.

At least watermarking has the additional step of having to try and shop it out before you resell the piece, lol.

Nobody is going to be buying "disaster girl" without proof that it's the actual NFT. If they try to buy a screenshot of it, they're a dumb as the person thinking they got a steal on a Sargent that was 1/1,000th the actual price.

Again, this is very much a "this how how the blockchain works" without actually delving into why this particular application of blockchain is good or even necessary. [url=https://mashable.com/article/nft-cryptocurrency-bad-environment-art/]

I buy the environmental angle, and the "scumbags are going to try to exploit this" because they are. The problem seems to be more that people are stealing and minting the art as NFT's, which is a problem with the marketplaces, not the entire concept itself. This stuck out to me though -

This isn't like comparing an original oil painting to a print, where the copies are very clearly different to the original.

Like, there are a LOT of really good replicas of all kinds of art, so this argument doesn't hold much water with me.

The reality is that NFTs just enable people with the money to throw at them to steal original work from smaller creators and putting up a financial barrier to actually proving provenance of the original, to say nothing of the environmental costs.

Again, this is brand new and there's a lot of shady and quite stupid shit going on (see: Dorsey's fuckin tweet being a NFT). NFT's for existing works will be extremely challenging right now, but it's the kind of thing where for - say comissions - the artist could turn the digital art into a NFT before it's put on the internet to begin with. Doing it retroactively is...kinda hard. And doing it to things like Dorsey's first tweet is hilariously awful and stupid and bruh.