Post by pelaezj1

pxl 1mo
1F5pti…gQC3 Unverified · twetch

I assume creator didn't ask for permission to use other people's art.

264 725 sat
18znR1…Gp98 Unverified · twetch

Your comment opens up an interesting debate, as we could ask the same question regarding every image generated by AI language models, every article written by AI, or every piece of code. Have the companies developing these models asked the original creators of the content, text, or code for permission to train their models? Not yet, but eventually, intellectual property and copyright lawsuits will reach the courts, and they will be required to make micropayments to the original creators. Now, returning to NFTs—which consist of public content that anyone can download and re-inscribe on the same blockchain or on alternative blockchains—we come to your question regarding whether the original designer granted permission to those imitating or modifying the illustrations. I assume the answer is no; they did not ask for permission.
Such disputes can easily be resolved using the timestamp provided by Bitcoin with each inscription; this makes it possible to determine when the original content was inscribed, whether using the 1Sat protocol or the protocol used for the original inscription (such as the Sigil protocol).
3dordi functions as a tool that helps users construct transactions using the 1Sat protocol and broadcast them to the network, rather than as a platform that approves or disapproves of the content being inscribed. This is similar to how Bitcoin miners do not act as judges deciding whether to accept or reject specific content within transaction payloads—they simply validate whether the transaction itself is valid. Consequently, 3dordi operates without requiring permission for use; following Bitcoin's core principle, responsibility rests with the user who signs the transaction. To assist consumers or collectors, I have implemented a public commenting feature for each item, allowing for comments such as "This is not original," "It was inscribed previously," and so on. Each collection has a unique ID and a timestamp that helps users identify copies, serving as a form of community moderation rather than centralized moderation—the latter of which would require significant resources to verify intellectual property or copyright regarding the content.

264 200 sat
What the chain says
Block
962 742
Time
2026-08-17T18:16:18Z
Signer
18znR1W3y8kF9MPxN6QFTXe4F8axj8Gp98
App
twetch
Type
reply
Content type
text/markdown

Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.

Signed by 18znR1W3y8kF9MPxN6QFTXe4F8axj8Gp98 Unverified

Replies (3)

pxl 1mo
1F5pti…gQC3 Unverified · twetch
Replying to@18znR1…Gp98

you slightly missed my point. it's a difference if something was generated by training data or obviously copy elements created by others. Many AI agents have blocked easy copyright infringements for that reason. If I generate with a prompt that goes like "Super Mario as a world leader" most agents won't do it anymore.
The post above shows a clear copycat collection, most backgrounds and some other elements were not even modified at all. In the end the users decide what they buy, but as a platform owner it's not the best promotion to even draw attention to such shaddy things. just my opinion.

527 704 sat
pxl 1mo
1F5pti…gQC3 Unverified · twetch
Replying to@1F5pti…gQC3

it's not even that hard to detect copyright issues I guess. @66034 for example checks it before one can mint a collection. I don't know how he does it tho.

1EkygL…i6ks Unverified · twetch
Replying to@1F5pti…gQC3

The rabbit does