Get the latest update on our Vizio court case
●News
Press Releases
Press
Blog
Vizio Lawsuit in the News
Our Issues in the News
●About
Sponsors
Sustainers
Board of Directors
Staff
Evaluation Committee
Outside Counsel, et alia
Transparency
Contact
●Our Work
Copyleft Compliance
We defend and uphold the rights of software users and consumers under copyleft licenses.
Impact Litigation
We defend the legal rights of software users. Learn the details, status, and stakes of our court cases.
Give Up GitHub
We urge FOSS Developers to Give Up GitHub! Learn why.
Outreachy
We offer internships for anyone who faces underrepresentation, systemic bias, or discrimination in the tech industry.
FOSSY
Our annual community-oriented conference focused on the creation and impact of free and open source software.
●Tools
Member Projects
We provide non-profit infrastructure and services to our members creating Free/Libre and Open Source Software.
Use The Source
Our tool for evaluating the source code candidates companies must provide for GPLed software.
OpenWrt One
We designed and built the first ever wireless Internet router designed with software freedom and right to repair in mind.
●Learn
The Corresponding Source
A bi-weekly oggcast about legal, policy, and many other issues in the Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) world.
Glossary of Terms
A list of terms you might be unfamiliar with but occur frequently in our work.
FAQ About the Vizio Lawsuit
Your most frequently asked questions about the Vizio lawsuit, answered in one place.
●
Donate
●News
Press Releases
Press
Blog
Vizio Lawsuit in the News
Our Issues in the News
●About
Sponsors
Sustainers
Board of Directors
Staff
Evaluation Committee
Outside Counsel, et alia
Transparency
Contact
●Our Work
Copyleft Compliance
We defend and uphold the rights of software users and consumers under copyleft licenses.
Impact Litigation
We defend the legal rights of software users. Learn the details, status, and stakes of our court cases.
Give Up GitHub
We urge FOSS Developers to Give Up GitHub! Learn why.
Outreachy
We offer internships for anyone who faces underrepresentation, systemic bias, or discrimination in the tech industry.
FOSSY
Our annual community-oriented conference focused on the creation and impact of free and open source software.
●Tools
Member Projects
We provide non-profit infrastructure and services to our members creating Free/Libre and Open Source Software.
Use The Source
Our tool for evaluating the source code candidates companies must provide for GPLed software.
OpenWrt One
We designed and built the first ever wireless Internet router designed with software freedom and right to repair in mind.
●Learn
The Corresponding Source
A bi-weekly oggcast about legal, policy, and many other issues in the Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) world.
Glossary of Terms
A list of terms you might be unfamiliar with but occur frequently in our work.
FAQ About the Vizio Lawsuit
Your most frequently asked questions about the Vizio lawsuit, answered in one place.
●Donate
Thanks to so many donors, we met our largest match donation ever of $211,939.
Two generous anonymous donors have provided another $40,012ofadditional matching funds.
Give now to help us reach this stretch goal!
For only 4 more days, the
next $13,079offinancial support we receive will be matched!
$26,933 matched!
$13,079 to go!
$211,927 fully matched!
Home / News / Blog
On Non-Fungible Tokens, Faces of Our Leadership, and Supporting Artists
byBradley M. Kühn and Karen M. Sandler
on December 23, 2021
We were certainly surprised this week to be told that we (Karen and
Bradley) were “for sale” at approximately US$200 each. It's
not us personally that's for sale, of course. Rather, the sale is for financial derivative
products that are based on digital images of us. Because of the
connection to these financial derivative products (called NFT) to our work on ethical
technology and FOSS generally, we share herein
our analysis of the situation. And, in the unlikely event you were
thinking about buying one of these risky financial derivatives — we give our
recommendation for an alternative way that you fund both Software Freedom
Conservancy and the artist who took the photographs in question while avoiding derivative products entirely.
Basic Backstory
Photo © 2017 by Peter Adams, licensed CC BY-SA
On 2017-03-04, we (Karen and Bradley) sat for a photo shoot with a
photographer named Peter Adams, who later released one photo from each of
our shoots as part of a larger work called “Faces of Open
Source”. We were surprised to learn that we were the only FOSS
leaders (among those who had been photographed at that point) to raise the question of FOSS
licensing for the photographs themselves. Sadly, Adams was not interested
in licensing the series under a Free license. We nearly declined to continue with the photo shoot,
but Karen had a compromise idea: if Adams agreed to license one good
photo of each of us back to us under CC-BY-SA, we would agree to sit for
the photo shoot. We both agreed to sign a release of copyright claims.
Rarely do subjects/models hold copyrights anyway on photos (unless it's a selfie), so we
determined, especially given that we were in town for the Southern
California Linux Expo, this photo shoot was not much different (ethically
and morally speaking) than walking around the conference and being
photographed candidly, in which case we'd also not hold copyright. We did not
relinquish any other of our rights and permissions, but we
did agree that our photos could be part of the “Faces of Open
Source” art project. We were really happy with the photos, and were glad we had CC-BY-SA photos to use. We appreciated that Adams took the time to prepare them for us.
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)
There has of course been much discussion about NFTs and how they operate
on a blockchain. We suspect most of our readers already know the
technical details of how NFTs work. What we'd like to focus on is the high
level description and how it relates to works of
authorship and FOSS licenses.
First and foremost, note that, to our knowledge and understanding, sale of
an NFT is generally unrelated to the copyright questions of the image. The
NFT is (roughly) a cyptographically-signed checksum of the image.
“Owning an NFT” simply indicates that — on some blockchain
somewhere — a group of people who participate in that blockchain have
cryptographically verified that the particular checksum is associated with
you. NFT hawks liken this to “owning” the
underlying work, but this is not true. Consider it this way: the
“underlying holding” is the photograph itself, which
has a financial value based on (a) the fame of the subject, and (b) the artistic
ability of the photographer to get a good/intriguing photo of that subject. The NFT,
by contrast, isn't the photo, it's “bragging rights” of
having others identify that you paid some amount money for the blockchain
participants to assent to your “ownership” of a checksum of
that photo. The NFT's value, thus, may move in the same direction of the value
of the copyright of the photo (or, say, a physical print of that photo), or it may not; there is no way to know. Moreover, we suspect, given the novelty of NFTs, that financial experts don't even yet
have reliable equations to understand how NFTs financially relate to their underlyings (as exist for other financial derivatives like futures contracts and stock options). While many people investing in NFTs understand their nature and understand what they are spending money on, we also think there's a predatory component of this industry that exploits people who don't have a good understanding of how NFTs work. We fear that many other people spend money on NFTs without really understanding what they are buying.
Photo © 2017 by Peter Adams, licensed CC BY-SA
Meanwhile, one need not have a copyright holdership or even a license to create
an NFT of any given image. We could sell NFTs of the same images if we
wanted to, even though we don't hold the copyright. We could sell NFTs of the
extremely similar color images (shown here) that Adams' licensed under
CC-BY-SA. But, we aren't going to do any of that. We think selling NFTs of these images is a silly
thing to do.
A Few of the Problems with NFTs
NFTs have many problems, and we aren't going to list them all here, as many
are outside the scope of ethical technology. However, the most concerning
problem is that most NFT blockchains use “proof of work” systems
to verify transactions, which costs computing resources (including intensive
use of processors, that produces heat, wastes electricity, and risks wearing out the processors more quickly than more traditional uses). While NFTs
are not yet widely adopted (and thus the costs in this regard are currently
nominal) most researchers believe that long-term and widespread use of
“proof of work” is ill-advised (for environmental and other reasons).
For our part, we probably would not have commented publicly on our concerns
about these issues. But, Adams made
NFTs for specific images of us, and there is mostly nothing we can do about
it — other than state our opinion of it. We would be remiss if we didn't point out that other laws besides copyright are involved
here. We are left wondering whether use of one's faces to
promote NFTs in this manner could be construed as a violation of
California's
Right to Publicity Law, and standard releases often don't broadly grant any
rights to endorse products like NFTs. (In this case, our rights releases were wholly narrowed to the “Content”, which here is the actual photo, and we were the “models”). It's unclear how far a right to publicity would extend as a legal matter, and we have no intent to explore that.
We agree with others in the “Faces of Open Source” series that
Adams made a mistake (ethically and morally) by not
asking the subjects to agree to have their names associated with the sale of NFTs
(particularly given the serious ethical technology considerations about NFTs).
Getting Artists (and Developers) Paid
One of the mission goals of Software Freedom Conservancy is to fund
developers to work on FOSS (related to our member projects and
initiatives). We believe strongly that folks who do Free Culture works
should, similar to those who do Free Software work, get paid for
that work. What's more, even though Adams chose not to make
“Faces of Open Source” a Free Culture project (opting instead for a
traditional proprietary model), we still think Adams should get
some compensation for his work — especially for the two photos he licensed
as CC-BY-SA. But we think NFTs is the wrong
approach.
We originally proposed selling photos in this blog post as a method to raise funds for Adams' work, but Adams wrote to us and indicated that he had not been experimenting with NFTs as compensation for his past work but rather to both help fund future Faces of Open Source photo shoots and raise money for FOSS organizations like ours. So Adams and we all suggest that if you like FoOS, please donate to our current fundraising campaign and other organizations doing good work in this space.
The Hate-Mail We Expect
We know that many of our Sustainers and fans believe deeply that NFTs and
other blockchain-related technologies like cryptocoins are world-changing
technologies. We remain neutral on that point; we admit that we simply
don't know how important these technologies will be long-term. However, we
do encourage everyone to consider the ethical implications of technology
like this. Plowing ahead with any technology simply because it's new and
exciting often leads to unintended dystopian consequences (such as already
occurred advertising-based, algorithm-controlled platforms from MMAGA
companies).
Finally, this is of course not a full analysis
of all the moral and ethical implications of NFTs. We do think NFTs might have
some interesting use-cases, such as academic institutions verifying transcripts and degrees
of students to third parties (and Karen loves some of the silliness connected with many NFT offerings). If done fully with FOSS, we don't object to
further research and consideration of how NFTs can be used for good purposes. However, we
approach with skepticism the notion that financial derivative transactions should receive the primary
use-case focus around new technologies, as has happened with NFTs. We should evaluate all new
technologies first and foremost with a question of how they can improve the lives of the most disadvantaged and underrepresented individuals.
[permalink]
Please email any comments on this entry to
info@sfconservancy.org.
Other Conservancy Blog entries…
Blog Index by Year
●2026
●2025
●2024
●2023
●2022
●2021
●2020
●2019
●2018
●2017
●2016
●2015
●2014
●2013
●2012
●2011
●2010
Blogs by Tag
●conservancy
●GPL
●supporter
●licensing
●conferences
●law
●events
●software freedom for everyone
●Member Projects
●Outreachy
●FOSS Sustainability
●diversity
●resources
●Copyleft Conf
●ContractPatch
●Filings
●Godot
●Reproducible Builds
●Year In Review 2016
●fundraiser
●CLA
●Wine
●Year In Review 2015
●Kallithea
●QEMU
●Selenium
●Google Summer of Code
●Homebrew
●inkscape
●patent
●security
●Clojars
●Git
●Hackfests
●Racket
●cyborg
●phpMyAdmin
●pypy
●volunteer
●Accounting
●LibreHealth
●Shotwell
●inclusion
●jQuery
●microblocks
●sourceware
Blogs by Author
●Vladimir Bejdo
●Kate Chapman
●Pamela Chestek
●Denver Gingerich
●Bradley M. Kühn and Denver Gingerich
●Will Hawkins
●Fred Jennings
●Deb and Karen
●Jeff King
●Bradley M. Kühn
●Conservancy + Bro LT
●Christine Lemmer-Webber
●Deb Nicholson
●Sourceware PLC
●Rick Sanders
●Bradley M. Kühn and Karen M. Sandler
●Karen Sandler
●Tony Sebro
●Sage A. Sharp
●Brett Smith
●Conservancy's Staff
●Daniel Takamori
●Outreachy Team
●Marina Zhurakhinskaya
●Molly deBlanc
●Main Page
●Contact
●Sponsors
●RSS Feed
●
Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity.
Privacy Policy last updated 22 December 2020.
This page and its contents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
