Talk:Disaster Girl

This allowed the family control over the image's distribution
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
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?
Not actually related to Orson Welles. 47.20.64.130 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)