Woman in Disaster Girl meme sells original photo as NFT for nearly $500,000

[stewie_e]

Remember the ‘Disaster Girl’ Meme? The Girl in the Photo Just Sold It as a Nearly $500,000 NFT​ https://t.co/BYkfRxvB86
- People (@people) April 30, 2021
Zoë Roth was only 4 when her father took a photo of her standing in front of a controlled fire near their home in Mebane, North Carolina in 2005. The rest is history: once the photo was uploaded

Comments

[fromyourashes]

i still don't get this entire thing. but if she can make some money off something she should have been making money for all this time, good. i guarantee others have profited off that picture, whether they gained followers or some kind of fame for using it, so she should have some, too.

but i still don't get this entire thing.

[archersangel]

This.

[wigsnatcher]

no. this is not good. NFTs are creating massive amounts of carbon emissions so don't support that shit. That's like clapping for people for dumping barrels of oil into the ocean.

[fromyourashes]

i simply don't get it at all
how is it creating carbon emissions
i'm supporting someone getting theirs for their own property, that's all. i'm not pro-ruination of the planet, tho

[penelopetaynt]

I still don't understand NFT... if I save the image to my phone, it's mine for free lol

[genbu_no_miko24]

But does it have a collector’s value? I think that’s one thing that separates it???

If I understood a part of it correctly: say you create an original artwork and sell it as a NFT…there’s something on the block-chain(?) that inform a person that this is an *official* piece so it gives an title of exclusivity which makes more lucrative for possible sells in the future.

Like with this meme, it’s been out there for years at this point but I guess you can argue that because the original person involved is selling it…it has more value (and proof of authenticity) than any old one you or I have saved on our comps/phones if they were to sell it cause of official proof.

There is more to it but I think I understood that much of it.

[pseudonygma]

I just don't understand how there's a market for this. Like someone mentioned in the last NFT post, it's not like you can display the original piece of art/music/whatever binary code as a flex

[_myaugust]

Apparently it's just a means for people to use their cryptocurrency while it has value without being able to cash it out (because they can't or something like that).

[fernandocolunga]

I hate that we’re so deep into late stage capitalism we have to fucking monetise everything even gifs and fucking tweets while this obsessive need to own “first” or “unique” pixels with an imginary inflated value contributes massively to climate change for some shit that can easily be reproduced but has less monetary value just because the Internet said so
Fuck everything I’m tired

[tanglespiders]

My dipshit comments on ONTD are actually the most valuable thing on the internet bc no one would ever want to sell them, making them the most unique. Antarctica would immediately burst like a water balloon if one were ever sold.

[milkradio]

100%

[corruptionoflol]

i was wondering how she did this since i always assumed this was a photograph from like... a newspaper photographer. makes sense since her dad took the photo

[bingobronson]

No shame in wanting to gain something from having your image used by people around the world for 15 years, but NFTs ain't the way.