It "will be marked as "not for sale without the NFT provenance" on the back" on the look-up tool on Cryptoat.com? Or previous owners should "be forced" to ink stamp the physical artwork on the back? (lol)
Only new prints (that are created with the NFT) will be marked on the back. It will be marked by us during publication. If you have a physical print, you don't need to do anything.
I am still not 100% sure if I understood this correctly. So, I can sell only the NFT, and keep the physical artwork (which in this case the physical artwork becomes "void"). However, if I would like to sell the physical artwork, I should/could/would "be allowed" to only sell it bundled with the NFT.
Will, in that case (selling the NFT bundled with the physical), the physical artwork becomes "void"? Will both the physical artwork & the NFT remains as "valid"?
If you want to transfer ownership, you need to transfer the NFT. That's it. The only reason I mentioned optionally including a physical is because some people may want to load the NFT on to the art piece.
Let's assume that I sell only the NFT and I keep the physical (which is now "marked" as void). The new owner of the NFT (due to the form agnostic) "can then reprint or enjoy the art in any form they like".
Hence they print a poster AND a mug AND a t-shirt with that image. Will all the 3 instances of the specific artwork be authenticated by just 1 NFT "licence"? Is there a limit? Or the printer goes brrrrr.... Cheesy
I'm glad you used this analogy. If previous copies of art pieces are not valid for resale, their velocity is zero. The fed could print a bunch of new money, but if it never makes it to a bank's balance sheet, no inflation.
In fairness though, the NFT could travel around to many buyers and each of the previous owners could have a non-transferrable version on their wall. This brings us back to the realization though that anyone can make a print of an image and hang it all their wall. It doesn't affect the available supply.
As an alternative approach, we could make it so that when someone creates an art piece using the NFT, they surrender the NFT to us. We could then embed the NFT in the art piece we created for them so that it's removal would damage the art piece. This would stop previous copies from being in existence. This was actually our original idea, but after some consideration we realized that the friction it caused didn't really solve anything given the argument above. I'm open for thoughts on this of course.
By creating multiple "validated" instances of the same artwork, do we artificially increase the total supply of "authenticated" physical artworks in existence?
The NFT is the authentication and an art piece can't stand alone without it's NFT. I think it may be confusing to you that you can sell someone an art piece as long as the NFT is included. Think of it like this, you are really just selling the NFT, but including an art piece to save the new NFT owner the cost of creating a new piece.
For example, owning 1 physical CoA, only authenticates 1 instance of the physical artwork. If I photocopy that instance of the physical artwork, it (the copy one) should not be considered as "valid".
To put it in these terms, the only authentic art piece is the art piece with the NFT.
Using your "Mona Lisa" example. Taking a photo of the "Mona Lisa", and printing 100 copies of that photo VS purchasing 100 copies of a numbered limited edition print of the Mona Lisa artwork, from the museum shop. (considering that the museum holds the rights to that painting)
I assume that the unauthorized reproductions of the photo that I took will have no value on the secondary market. However, the licenced print artwork purchased from the museum shop, might have.
If the prints from the museum shop had the term "not valid for resale" they would have little value.
If the new owner of the NFT, receive that specific physical original copy in the future, will the physical artwork become "valid" again?
I think I see the source of the confusion. We could simply mark all new pieces as "not valid for resale." This would bring the point home that the NFT is the ownership. Most people will simply sell the NFT by itself anyway. As mentioned above, marking new pieces "not valid for resale with the NFT" accomplishes a similar result in terms of supply availability. I'm open for feedback on this.
Will the accompanying image artwork of the NFT be a numbered edition, or a generic one (without a specific enumeration at the bottom left).
Let me give an example: Let's assume that I am the owner of the physical "Battle of the Algorithms 171/200" (well... I am not -at least not yet Cheesy- since it is currently on an auction here, on the collectible section). I decide to keep the physical artwork and sell the NFT. When the new NFT owner would like to print some posters, mugs, tees etc. with that artwork, will the image provided (with the NFT) includes the specific enumeration (ie 171/200) OR it will be just the image of the artwork (without the 171/200)?
By creating form agnostic reproductions with the specific 171/200 tag, it partially solves the scarcity & "the printer goes brrrr" issue, since all those can be considered as "authenticated reproductions" (based on the NFT 171/200 licence CoA that the user hodls).
You get your number. But, you will never see multiple copies of the same number for sale because only one person has the NFT. You can't sell anything without the NFT. The art pieces without the NFT are not validly transferrable.
Apologies for all those "confusing" questions, however that "NFT concept", confuses me sometimes.... lol
No worries. It can be confusing. I think the ah ha moment I had was when I realized that the value of editioned art (in this case prints), is not in the media it is on. The cost to make a print is very small. The real value is your right to enjoy something scarce, and even more so, your ability to sell that scarce enjoyment to others.
All of this is an experiment.
