Farcaster

‼️important thing about biddable casts

idk if anyone else has thought about this but if you repost or share someone else’s art/memes/content (even if u credit them) and your cast is monetised via the bidding function i’m like 95% sure it’s illegal 🤗

₊‧°𐐪♡𐑂°‧₊ writing about digital art & curating things 
₊‧°𐐪♡𐑂°‧₊ Artistic Manager @ Artpoint.
Building /lanparty 💾 Hosting /curation ✨

🫠🫠 

but isnt coining a repost is like watching a reaction video. Someone is basically making a content by using someone else’s content

Digital artist, lover of the cosmos, seeker of inner wisdom and nature’s beauty 🌿

https://linktr.ee/0fflinexo

@benna I mean isn't it transformative content in this regard? if it's represented with a new / constructive context? Regardless, a toggle will solve this issue easy 🙏

3D / visual artist  /cudacore | 
linktr.ee/akuavisuals

you're absolutely right to bring up these points! and Youtube is notoriously strict on ppl using copyrighted material in their videos for a reason! but your point about articles using images is a good one, and a good comparison. again, I think most of the time people don't pursue the publications, even though they technically could, because they're usually credited or provided written permission.

there is a *small* amount of maneuver in IP law for 'artistic creations'. that is, you take copyrighted material and warp it / integrate it into your artwork enough that it becomes unrecognisable and therefore can legally be used.

You're completely right and I do oppose monetising people's work without them being compensated.

But i question whether or not it's that the subject of each post, meaning the material itself, is what's being monetized. Or perhaps it's the context with which someone presents it that warrants it being something transformative. What I'm referring to isn't a 1 to 1 post of someone's work and it being monetized on grounds of that.

Articles featuring depictions of work from artists are monetized and writers & editors receive compensation for that. Youtubers monetize their videos even if they feature copyrighted material. 
Lastly, there is a very fine line here because with farcaster everything has already been monetized in some way, because we receive rewards for interactions and engagement. The difference now is direct monetary compensation.

Please know that i moreso question the systems themselves and what it means for online curation and image redistribution, I'm not advocating for these systems as is.

in what way would you consider someone making money off a cast of someone else’s content/work constructive? (genuine question!!)

don’t get me wrong LOTS of copyright / IP law is overly restrictive and strict. i don’t agree with all of it, but these are just the facts of what is questionably legal or not. what people want to do with this information is totally up to them ofc :-)