FTFY

Colored coin may help solve the IP dilemma.

Let's say I create an original digital image and want to sell a limited set of copies online.
1. Starting with the uncompressed original I use the image to create a SHA256 hashed Bitcoin address.
2. I then take that address and embed it into a slightly compressed copy.
3. Then I send some bitcoins to that address to issue colored coins.
4. I sell the compressed copy along with a corresponding colored coin using p2p trade on my Deviant Art website.

The copies and coins are part of a limited set issued by the author. I understand that copies of the art will be pirated, but the colored coins cannot. They can be used to prove ownership of a copy with the colored coin. If anyone wishes to buy a copy and ensure that it is a legitimate copy, they need only buy it on auction by placing a buy and having it accepted or accepting an existing offer.

Software can be done the same way. Make it easy to copy and use, but if anyone wants a legitimate copy they buy a token. Upgrades can be distributed in this way (though I recommend only using verified copies). Then the IT or Accounting department needs only manage the tokens.

The same way we know there is a "bitcoin." Bitcoin uses a published blockchain. The notion of a soul is published in religious doctrine.

Another way to look at it as a store of value. Ask some people what they would sell their bitcoin for and they will answer in dollars. Ask them what they would sell their soul for and few would do it for any price. Some people might even be willing to trade for them.

Someone needs to start "SoulBay" as a place to sell your soul for bitcoins. 

Lots of those here.   

If you search the forums you'll find others interested in 3D printing. I'll be waiting a few years for cheap metal 3D printers to evolve.

I'm probably overthinking this. When I was working on the idea a few years ago, colored coin didn't yet exist. I was planning to use Casacius style security stickers on paintings. Colored coins should be easily attached to digital prints. It's probably just a matter of developing an easy to use colored coin client that hashes a limited set of digital copies for Deviant Art users.

The software is to protect the buyer, not to secure the artwork. You can use any encryption. The cc is not a key to the artwork, it only verifies that you have a legitimate copy. The hash of your digital master is historically verifiable on the blockchain. If you give away digital copies of your numbered digital master, then you deserve to lose the value you paid for it.

This is no different than the digital assets being addressed by Open Assets, Ethereum, et al. It would just be simpler with Colored Coin.

I proposed this idea a few years ago to a certain Bitcoin gambling mogul to invest in developing the idea. He didn't think art was a good fit for Bitcoin. In fact, I think most Bitcoiners have no interest in art.

You can say the same thing about Bitcoin.

You could make copies, but only one would have the colored coin to verify it. The person you sold it to would not be happy that multiple copies were released.

Edit: You have to transfer the colored coin, not just give away the keys, just like a bitcoin.

If you have an original copy that was sent to you by an artist, how can you prove you didn't copy it before selling it and sell another copy to someone else as an original print?

All I'm saying is that you add a bitcoin transaction into the mix to prove it is legit. You could do it without a Colored Coin and just use any cryptocurrency, but it would require keeping an off blockchain registration list. Colored Coins are publicly unique and don't need a central server to register them.

I don't care about physical art like the Mona Lisa, but if you had Leonardo's original digital rendering and could prove so cryptographically, then you would sell the original colored coin with the painting.

Let's just forget the physical printing part. It's not important because print technologies are constantly improving.

I think you are conflating two different transactions. The creator of the art can make as many colored coins as he wishes and that number is known when they are issued.

Secondary owners (purchasers) would have to transfer their colored coin with the original digital art. They could keep a copy, but it would not be a legitimate copy they could resell.

A typical jail in Sweden.

Only the hip and trendy ones. 

In the case of software like microsoft or magic the gathering, you could use Verisign, but web based tokens are not as secure as the blockchain.

This isn't about copyright infringement. It's about protecting the buyer's interest. The original creator/artist could die for all I care. In fact, that usually makes art more valuable.

First, you would not reveal your original copy, that would be like giving away your private key. You would only do so to sell the asset. The buyer would then create a new token from your token and there would be a blockchain history. Screen grabs would not be provable as authentic print releases from the artist. If you have the original digital print and the hash, you can sign your token to prove ownership.

Sure, you could make a million pirate copies, but they would not be traceable to the original colored coin that was issued. Really, having special software is for your own protection but not necessary if you have better means to secure the asset.

Again, I'm not talking about copyright infringement. I'm talking about the buyer wanting to protect his particular investment, not the company that created it.

1. I'm talking about Colored Coin tokens. Bitcoin mining is already part of the protocol.

2. Ethereum, NXT, Mastercoin, Counterparty, et al. could do this as well. This is a Bitcoin forum, so I am using Bitcoin based Colored Coin as an example.

Let's say you are an artist and want to sell a limited edition run of electronic prints. You would issue colored coins that are partially embedded into the print itself. You would be able to authenticate your ownership by signing your colored coin that is verified to be the print number that is owned by you. If you sell the digital print, you will also have to transfer the colored coin. If you sell the digital form, the image would need to be re-hashed and a new colored token would be created that would be traceable to the previous token. If multiple tokens are hashed, they would be seen in the blockchain. It behooves the owner to never expose the original to the internet. You would need an offline or sandboxed device to render the image for display purposes.

No. Any digital image can be copied, but images encrypted that can only be displayed with special software will help protect your purchase from being copied if you don't want it to be. It's only to prove authenticity, not copy protection.

While folks are working on creating asset tokens for Bitcoin 2.0, I would ask for development of an image format akin to DRM that first checks the blockchain for the outputs before accessing the image data. Then anything done with the image like printing, displaying, or selling would require a transaction (with a fee) and would remove the color from the token.

Important documents would be authenticated by the author as a notarization. This wouldn't deter copyright infringement, but would be useful for authenticating original artwork. Rights for displaying lower resolution images in the case of artwork could be granted with different color (and cheaper) tokens.

This would mostly be useful when it is important to authenticate the originality of the document or artwork. For instance, applications could be developed that prove that "selfie" images were taken by the camera installed on the device. Games like "Magic: The Gathering" could sell virtual cards displayable once on a device. And of course, contractual tools could be developed.