 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This allowed the family control over the image's distribution edit
That doesn't make sense. There's no mechanism by which NFTs allow control over the image's distribution. The fact that the photo in question is shown in this very article should be proof that this is objectively nonsense. They also didn't "sell the photo" in any meaningful sense if they retained copyright on it. They sold something, but that something is more like buying a company's stock, rater than buying the company itself. In any case, there is no arguing that this stunt does not affect how and when the photo is circulating on various platforms. If anything it's become more uncontrollable via the Streisand effect due to an increase in popularity. Just because there's a source claiming something doesn't mean it should be stated as a fact like this when it's obviously bs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.243.127.130 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I don't see how this allowed them to control the image's distribution. The source cited for that claim is locked behind a paywall so I can't read it. I'm removing that sentence. Nog642 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This needs its own wiki page edit
Unbelievable. Its just a picture. The nerve of some people to waste time on this!
2600:6C56:6408:71:35A1:8FEA:80AA:4958 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)anonymous
Defaced? edit
Not actually related to Orson Welles. 47.20.64.130 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)