Sure, but to be fair, only the smallest fraction of artists would have that happen - and most often, it happens well after the artist is dead. In general, an artist is lucky if they sell art for cheap prices, and even luckier if they sell at a decent price.
And with this, it would generally look more like, "artist sells NFT for $75, and two years later got a $8 payout from a resell." Not to mention that you won't get anything for folks gifting the NFT nor any other non-monetary trades.
And back to the "long after they are dead" detail: Who, exactly, gets the money? I mean, by all means, give the money to any immediate family - sibling, parent, spouse, children - or anyone else that would get inheritance from me. But after that, wouldn't it just all go to the owner much like it does now?
2. CDs are copies, NFTs are sort of originals, so it's pretty different.
There is no such thing as an original digital media asset. The digital media attached to an NFT is by definition a copy.
Not that I'm a big fan of NFTs or anything, but they really are not that different from what already happens in art.
(There's also NFTs that are images generated by code that takes where in the blockchain it was added into account - that image has not existed before the NFT was minted)
In the event of huge transactions going on, how plausible is it that the people selecting properties to inflate in this way will choose properties that are encumbered by such an obligation?
I think 'artist gets a cut' is certainly a cool concept, but I think it's purely hypothetical. It will not work out that way in the real world. There will be a mysterious lack of revenue stream to 'artists', even if the scale of speculation continues as it has.
Reason being, this type of speculation is not really about art.
It’s not dissimilar to copyright, where almost no estate gets to profit economically from copyright decades after the author’s death. Basically you get rules made for the appealing exceptions rather than the norm.
The only possible advantage of a blockchain here is if you don't trust the law, since the technology itself enforces a smart contract and doesn't rely upon recourse to a legal system. The downside is you have no recourse to a legal system, so if some owner of a digital good sells it off-chain (you give me cash, I give you possession of the wallet), there isn't much you can do.
So pollock (or his estate or whatever) owns the copyright to the sold painting and so gets paid when you buy a postcard etc.
- what surprised me is that if someone pays 100M for a painting of sunflowers they are just getting pasteboard and oils - if they want to publish a picture of their purchase they get to pay again !
Just did not expect that
Is this actually a feature of NFTs?
Think of it like a processing fee making the platform completely unworkable. Nobody will ever deal with that kind of inefficiency unless they are doing something so desperately illegal that they'd willingly pay that much for the money laundering.
And there's bound to be more efficient ways to money launder. Nope. The artist royalty promise is a pure con.
If you sell your NFT art for $10 and then someone resells it for $1M, you will get some percentage of the $1M.
We've all heard the stories of "collector buys 10 Jackson Pollock's for $10 in the 70s, sells the collection for $100M today". Wouldn't it be nice if the artist could benefit from that belated appreciation?
Like most other things on the blockchain you don't really need the blockchain to do this, however this is one case where it's actually much simpler to implement the concept using a blockchain and smart contracts rather than any traditional method I'm aware of.