I'm trying to understand about NFT's (non-fungible tokens). The more I read the more this seems to be some kind of backlash to online games in which you work/grind/farm to get what is essentially a digital image or file, one copy of it, which you in fact do not own.

NFT seems to be a way to own something which you still don't really own. You may have fought, worked, or otherwise feel you own it, but you did not create it so you have no copyrights to the original image/game/whatever digital file it is.

If the original artist does not create an NFT for their image and then agree to sell the rights along with the NFT, what does anyone who buys the NFT really own? Kind of claiming to own something without having any real rights to do so. Or, do they own a copy, like a screen capture of the original, and then believe the artist no longer has rights to the image?

Complicated.

I haven't heard of all of these, so I expect some will be news to other photographers too. This matters especially when you are selling your photographs. If you are writing out something about the rights people have with your photos, these would be good terms to know.

Photos have copyrights assigned to them and you need to make sure you’re following the laws. Here are some things to consider:

• Editorial Use: the right to use in blogs, websites, magazines, newspapers, etc.
• Commercial Use: Can be used to market products/services.
• Retail Use: Can be used to create and sell physical products.
• Exclusive: Only one person can buy the license to use the photo. No-one else can use the photo.
• Non-Exclusive: Numerous other people can buy the license to use the image.
• Public Domain: There are no restrictions on the use of the photo.
• Creative Commons: Can put conditional usage of the work, until it is not required by law.
• Royalty Free: Anyone can purchase a license for the photo and use it for an unlimited amount of time and duration.
• Rights Managed: There are distribution limitations when you purchase a license. This is often the number of times the image is used/viewed by users.
• Rights Of Publicity: The subject of which the photo is used for is restricted.

Source: How To Sell Photos On Shopify - ShopThemeDetector

Most ASCII artists will tag their ASCII creation with their initials. This is not just about signing your art, it shows who created the art – the original artist. If someone else colours the art, or modifies it in any other way, the artist initials need to be kept with it. Anyone modifying art can add their initials and a note about what they had done to the original art. Include a link to where you found the art, if not a link to the original artist themselves.

This is what the Respect ASCII Artist’s Campaign is about. The ASCII art is available to be enjoyed, used and shared. But, give respect to the original artist and leave their initials on the work.

I've been reading that blogging is dead. Some of these predictions are just for self promotion, trying to write something that will go viral. However, some of them are based on real perception; watching the trends and having an understanding of the way things work.

The individual publishers of blogging are not dead. Social media gurus, content curators and general blog publishers (notice publishers, not writers) are  still linking to content. So content is still out there. It has been getting harder to find quality content versus content which is carelessly written, very repetitive, unoriginal and usually has nothing to say, like a political speech with a lot of words to fill space but actually say nothing.

The web has become commercial versus creative. Less content (which is both unique and freely given) is being created.

Quality of writing has suffered as people really don't care what they publish. It isn't meant to be fit for human consumption and doesn't really need spelling, grammar, punctuation or comprehension in order to be good for SEO (search engine optimization). Quality of the content itself has also suffered, for years. Writing which has a point of view, writing which actually has something to say rather than regurgitating every other article, post and opinion online has been getting harder to find.

As a writer looking at writing jobs being offered I am seeing a big emphasis on social media and keywords. The quality of the content isn't high on the list of importance. So the people writing this stuff, don't need to know how to write -  if they can sell the stuff they write. They sell themselves as content marketers and those are the people who then write for the site.

It isn't the individual blog but the individual writer which makes the content people want to link to.

The bigger/ popular blogs may have hired writers but even the hired writers are writing the content the publishers want to sell. They are often writing for keywords, better SEO practices and Google (even though Google is a bot, not the reading public).

This is pretty much why people have started claiming blogging is dead. Commercial blogging has caused most blog content to be meaningless, just repetitive drool you could find on a lot of other blogs. Very few blogs still post original, valuable content without turning it into an ebook (or some other format) which they sell rather than distribute freely.

Web publishing can not exist in a vacuum where the creative spark is sucked dry.

The people who do still publish original content are having it scraped/ stolen until they become too discouraged to continue publishing. Some quit, some give in and write the stuff that sells and some continue to write but they stop distributing it freely. Making the content for pay then gives them some control over having it stolen.

Not all content you pay for is worth paying for, of course. The commercial publishers think getting paid for an ebook full of nothing useful is a great idea.  Rewrite the same old stuff, hire writers to bang out something with enough words and you can offer up an ebook. Market it the right way and pull in the sales.

Ironic (and sad) how the Internet is eating itself, like an ouroboros (the snake eating it's own tail).

Long before the Internet people used the mail service as a cheap way to protect and establish their copyrights for written material. You just make a copy of your work and mail it to yourself. If you keep the envelope sealed you have a preserved copy of your work, dated by Canada Post (insert the name of the postal service in your location).  It was a cheap and fairly good way to prove your work was your own original work.

Now we have the Internet. Publishing online is risky if you want to control your written work, your words. Copyrights are in battle with artists, governments, corporations and the public all pulling in their own directions. Each group has their own agenda and all too often they don't really seem to listen to each other. At times they actually want the same thing and yet, can't see it.

Anyway, today I found a link to MyFreeCopyright.com on a blog by Veronica The Pajama Thief. I have seen it before but today I clicked the link and went for a visit.

I thought it was funny how the basis of the copyright plan was following the traditional idea of mailing your work to yourself. Something so old is still around, just in an updated version for the digital age.

This could work for most people. You would have something to show for the date your work was created. It would be using a service not of your own making to prove the date.

However, it doesn't really do anything to control your written work online. It's still out there, waving around like laundry on a clothes line. Anyone can still come along and take what they want. Publishing online is still reliant on the honour system, old fashioned trust and good will.

Is it frustrating? Yes. Is it worth steaming and stewing about? Not really. As individual artists we just don't have the resources to do a lot about it. I have had my work taken. I've even had my ASCII Art taken and claimed to be created by the person who took it. I only know about that because she was silly and posted it to the ASCII art newsgroup as her own. I was active in that group. Everyone that mattered knew I had created the work. She looked like a fool. So, in that case I had my petty revenge and the thief did admit what she had done. From that I learned to stop focusing on controlling my work online. Once I put it out there it really is available, fully and completely. I just have to do what I can to protect it, which isn't much.

I would like to see the copyright laws made to protect artist's work online. But, I can't see it really happening for us. For the corporations... yes. The music industry, the film industry... etc. those will be protected, as an industry. As individuals... I think we really just have ourselves and an old fashioned reliance on the honour system, good will and trust. Maybe a touch of karma, now and then.