Current Events > Disaster Girl Meme Sells As An NFT For More Than $450,000

(+) Yeah! (+)

The woman featured in the popular internet meme Disaster Girl has reclaimed ownership over the image and made quite the profit: It sold as a non-fungible token for more than $450,000.
The meme itself came into existence when Zoe Roth, now 21, was merely 4 years old. Her dad snapped a photograph of her outside of a home in their North Carolina neighborhood as it burned down in 2005. The resulting image, which appeared to show Roth looking upon the house as though she were responsible for the flames, ended up winning JPG magazines Emotion Capture contest and later made the rounds on Flickr, Zooomr, and beyond.
Roths smirk in front of the fire has since become internet shorthand for chaos and has been shared millions of time. Knowing this, the UNC Chapel Hill senior decided to auction the image off as a non-fungible token (or NFT) after receiving an email suggesting she do so, according to the Raleigh News & Observer.
NFTs are unique and cant be replaced with something else, The Verge explained, and can most closely be compared with a work of art or even a one-of-a-kind trading card. Most are stored on the Ethereum blockchain, essentially a digital ledger for cryptocurrency. The items value is based on its rarity.
The Disaster Girl NFT was coded so that Roth keeps the copyright, and, each time it is bought, she receives 10% of the sale. Such a move puts her in control of the viral image for the first time in nearly 16 years.
A 24-hour auction for the NFT ultimately yielded Roth nearly $458,000 or 180 ETH (Ethereum), which she plans to split with her family.
Roth told the Raleigh News & Observer that she specifically planned to donate her portion to nonprofits and added: Nobody who is a meme tried to do that, it just ended up that way Is it luck? Is it fate? I have no idea. But I will take it.



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/disaster-girl-meme-nft_n_6088192ae4b003896e09d75f

cool that she is able to capitalize on the meme, I guess.

---

Are people using NFTs to try and turn gifs and meme pictures into art or something?

I stil have no idea what an NFT actually is. I think I'm just gonna old man up on out of here.

---

specialkid8 posted...

I stil have no idea what an NFT actually is. I think I'm just gonna old man up on out of here.

Think of it like paintings

The NFT is the original, made by the artist, the rest are copies

However it makes zero sense in the digital medium

specialkid8 posted...

I stil have no idea what an NFT actually is. I think I'm just gonna old man up on out of here.

just an ID attached to a piece of media. The media in question is usually, if not always, arbitrary.

---

I still don't really get where the value derives from for something like this. It feels like the type of thing that will work as long as it's trendy but will be worth nothing once the novelty of NFTs wears off

---

Someone paid $450,000 for a digital picture instead of just using copy+paste and getting it for free?

---

specialkid8 posted...

I stil have no idea what an NFT actually is. I think I'm just gonna old man up on out of here.

It's basically like "owning" a star aside from the naming part... you just, "own" it and that's about it

---

eston posted...

I still don't really get where the value derives from for something like this. It feels like the type of thing that will work as long as it's trendy but will be worth nothing once the novelty of NFTs wears off

The value is literally just how much other people are willing to pay

Like modern art pieces that are just the "artist" leaving the canvas white or randomly splashing paint and calling it a day.

Some of that crap sells for millions.

Rathinor posted...

The value is literally just how much other people are willing to pay

Like modern art pieces that are just the "artist" leaving the canvas white or randomly splashing paint and calling it a day.

Some of that crap sells for millions.

Those types of things usually have more to do with who the artist is than the actual piece of art. That doesn't seem to be the case with NFTs at all.

---

eston posted...

Those types of things usually have more to do with who the artist is than the actual piece of art. That doesn't seem to be the case with NFTs at all.

Note that I'm playing devil's advocate, I personally think this whole idea is batshit:

It's arguable, because a famous meme has more exposure than a lot of modern artists

The idea of owning originals makes them collectors items. There's no actual rationality to be made of it

Collectors will be able have the original meme linked to an NFT which is unique and basically a certification of validity.

Again, it's stupid, but rich people spend their money on far more stupid shit

nft's are money laundering plain and simple

Rathinor posted...

Note that I'm playing devil's advocate, I personally think this whole idea is batshit:

It's arguable, because a famous meme has more exposure than a lot of modern artists

The idea of owning originals makes them collectors items. There's no actual rationality to be made of it

Collectors will be able have the original meme linked to an NFT which is unique and basically a certification of validity.

Again, it's stupid, but rich people spend their money on far more stupid shit

I guess you sort of have to redefine what an "original" actually is or something. Like, I get the idea of something being one of a kind in a physical sense, but for something digital it just seems pointless to even make that distinction. Like the NFT for the first ever tweet. The tweet itself was posted years ago and was never considered an item that had value, but now all of a sudden it has an NFT attached and that somehow makes it worth a lot of money.

I don't know, it makes me feel old lol

---

specialkid8 posted...

I stil have no idea what an NFT actually is. I think I'm just gonna old man up on out of here.

It's the latest form of money laundering, now enhanced with the power of crypto to make it nearly impossible to track.

---

like are there rights that go along with this? do I need to pay royalties if i use the meme? Doesnt seem so which makes this all the more stupid.

---

ECOMI is my homey.
---

Think of it this way

In 20 years or so (maybe less), the rich houses of the future won't just display art, they'll have holograms showing off the original tweet or meme they bought

The NFT is like a certification, it can't be duplicated and proves your piece of data is the original

Stupid as fuck from a rational standpoint, but people don't just own art for how it looks. Rarity creates value and value creates prestige

They're tying the authenticity of a meme/picture or whatever to a token which is a piece of data that gives that object value because now you can say you own the original of a meme that people share daily. Similar to having an original piece of art certified

It's artificially creating collectors items

radical rhino posted...

Someone paid $450,000 for a digital picture instead of just using copy+paste and getting it for free?

It's about ownership of authenticity.

I can buy the mona lisa in frame and everything for like $60

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PGK1CQR/

But the original? That costs millions and isn't really even "for sale"

Why is the original millions and the replica $60 if they look exactly the same?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Why is the original millions and the replica $60 if they look exactly the same?

They don't. Unlike a jpg, no physical replica is a perfect clone.

---

Also, The meme itself is technically a Replica. The original image, regardless of what kind of camera it was taken on, probably doesn't exist anywhere.

---

Here's how I see it.

Physical painting:
Artists makes painting. Painting is worth $. Artist eventually blows up and becomes famous. Original painting is now worth $$$$$. Copies of the painting are worth $$.

Digital image:
Person takes a picture. Picture is worth $ (or arguably 0). Picture blows up and becomes viral (famous). Original image is now worth $$$$$. Copies of the image are worth $ (or still 0).

The main differences I see here is that in the physical example, the painting becomes valuable because of the artist. In the digital example, the image becomes valuable because of the image (and not necessarily the artist). However, the person in the image can claim to be the "artist" which gives her the same "rights" to the image that an artist of a physical painting would have. The infinite copies of the image that exist online doesn't change the fact that she owns the "original".

The issue with this logic is that in the physical example, there is an actual physical original that we can connect the price tag to. It's a tangible thing we can hold and trade. In the digital example, there is no physical tangible item, but merely a digital concept, similar to someone copyrighting a screenplay or trademarking a name, two things that don't have physical forms but are nonetheless protected.

The whole thing seems silly to me, but I understand where it comes from.

---

Guide posted...

They don't. Unlike a jpg, no physical replica is a perfect clone.

---

I can't wait to see how much TechnoViking will net.

---

EnterTheTekken posted...

I can't wait to see how much TechnoViking will net.

Didn't that dude try to sue the person who uploaded the video?

---

eston posted...

Didn't that dude try to sue the person who uploaded the video?

I think so. Successfully. He really wanted to stay private.

---

Guide posted...

They don't. Unlike a jpg, no physical replica is a perfect clone.

Or even close to original paint tbh.

---