Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Drama Reaches 3D Printing World
jfruh writes "Stratasys, one of the world's biggest 3D printer manufacturers, routinely uses 3D-printed objects as displays for its booths at trade shows. The problem: It's been using objects designed by popular designer Asher Nahmias, whose creations are licensed under a noncommercial Creative Commons license — and he says Stratasys's use violates the licensing terms. This is just one example of how the nascent 3D printing industry is having to grapple with the IP implications of creating physical objects out of downloadable designs. Another important problem: IP law distinguishes between purely decorative and useful objects, but how should the digital files that provide a design for those objects be treated?"
The models are copyrighted and licensed NC, but what about the resulting object? Precedent seems to imply that the resulting object cannot be controlled (e.g. the output of a GPLed program is not GPLed, so why should executing a program on a 3D printer be any different?).
The cad files or what ever they are to the object as source code is to a binary.
If someone put up NC licensed instructions for making a one of these designs, and I carved one out of a block of wood. Would I still be violating the terms?
What's copyrighted is the idea, not the physical manifestation or "input". If you take a downloaded copy of HotSummerBlockbuster 3.0 and burn it to a DVD, that DVD is still covered by copyright. Similarly, you couldn't download a copyrighted song, have vinyl plates cut from it, press records, and sell those. It is the creative work itself that is covered by copyright.
TODO: Something witty here...
How about lets just decide to not tell people what they can and can't print with their 3-d printers?
Apart from public hazard kind of items, at least.
This space available.
Derivative works, and delicious plastic nanoparticles.
That if I print out a 3D version of Cloud Strife's sword from FF VII that it would still be Square's (now SquareEnix) protected design.
If I upload Mr. Nahmias shit to a file host that displays ads, is the file host using it for commercial purposes? If I have a revenue sharing agreement with the host, might I be sued?
For the record, I think that this "noncommercial" clause is shit (see Stallman's argument against that) if it's going to be interpreted like this. How can you seriously call this license free? It's not as if they are selling the designs and making a profit themselves.
Which one? There are a plethora of irrelated laws that fall under that umbrella.
The arrangement and artistry of the software is what is protected. The output of the software is not the software, so no problem. Identical copies of the software would be infringing no matter how they were put together.
The arrangement artistry of the object is what's protected. Doesn't matter how the object was fabricated, identical copies are infringing.
Duh.
.
Maybe the discussion needs to be whether or not technology advancement needs to be slowed down in order for civilasation to keep up with the changes......
Precedent seems to imply that the resulting object cannot be controlled
So the input to the projector at the movie theatre is copyrighted, but the output projected on screen isn't?
Therefore it should be legal for me to record it on my cellphone and post it on youtube. or post 15 second bits recorded on a cellphone to instragram
IP law distinguishes between purely decorative and useful objects, but how should the digital files that provide a design for those objects be treated?"
Corporations: Treat possession of them as major criminal activity. Outlaw them. Nuke it from orbit, only way to be sure.
Academics: We should probably make a fair use exception, so anyone can do it for personal use, or if its a parody work... you know, non-commercial.
Slashdotters: Screw profits! Digital blue prints want to be freeeeeeeee!
Richard Stallman: We should join our hands together and sing songs, using copyright against them! By creating free alternatives to commercial products without restriction, we can build a stronger community.
Me: Until it can print a cat, the internet won't care.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
waza!
Surely this has already been covered by existing laws about patterns, etc?
When the patent trolls begin crapping all over 3d printing it will be only the behemoths and shell "intellectual property" companies who control it..like every f*cking thing else of any scale.
/end grumpy rant
I submitted a post to Slashdot back in 2005 about whether printing a document using a GPL-licensed font would make the resulting document GPL.
This sounds like a similar issue.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/05/04/17/2118203/unintended-consequences-of-using-gpl-fonts
The general concensus from the previous discussion appeared to be that (a) the GPL wasn't intended to be used for fonts, and using it that way is a bad idea, and (b) the resulting document would probably not be GPL. Of course, nobody is is a position to make any definite pronouncements about it since this issue has never come up in a courtroom, as far as I know.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Hardly. They make shapes. There is a difference.
Treat it with due empathy !!
The problem: It's been using objects designed by popular designer Asher Nahmias, whose creations are licensed under a noncommercial Creative Commons license — and he says Stratasys's use violates the licensing terms.
That's not drama, it's common sense.
Look, I don't care who you are. If you're going to sell a product, don't steal someone's work to show off your product. That's just stupid arrogant wrong. Stratasys could have found hundreds, if not thousands of alternative designs to print off at their booths that don't infringe on someone's copyright. Or you know, they could man up and make their own designs from scratch, or pay the designer for the designs. It's not like they're in the 3D printer manufacturer business or anything. Oh wait, they are!
If your 'product' is making 3D printed objects, then you don't get a free pass on deciding when it's OK to just print what ever you want. Customers can do that, the manufacturers can't.
Oh, how the tables have turned.
1993: Modems sucked, so you couldn't download anything of value, but we still traded warez on BBS.
2003: MPAA/RIAA: "You wouldn't download a car!"
2013: Ok we take that back. You can, but you really shouldn't download and print out parts to make a car, because you'll be in copyright violation!
2023: You wouldn't download a new kidney!
2033: Ok we take that back...
OK,what about the phrase "... with a 3D printer" makes this hard for people to understand? Designers copyright and/or get design patents (which are different from functional (is that the right word?) patents) on their designs. They then license those designs as theys see fit. The licensee's manufacture them, and some of the artifacts end up at Target or Macy's. There is nothing about manufacturing with a 3D printer that changes the idea of a copyrighted/patented design that needs to be licensed in order to manufacture it.
Stratasys screwed up, pure and simple. They manufactured a design without a license. Perhaps they misunderstand CC licenses. Perhaps they are jerks.
In the end, there is nothing new here. Some designs have licenses. Some companies are run by people that are clueless and/or jerks.
The phrase "... with a 3D printer" is simply newshead velcro -- people use it to get a story published. Don't let those people weaken your mind.
The reverse also happens - you can get DMCA takedowns on objects to print. And this happened years ago.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/the-next-napster-copyright-questions-as-3d-printing-comes-of-age/
What we're seeing is basically the same thing with software patents - immense twisting of IP laws to cope with stuff that really never occurred before.
After all, you used copyright for stuff you wrote, and that stuff you wrote was typically a book, a play, music, whatever, meant to be enjoyed by others. Or it could be an ancillary book like an instruction manual.
And patents usually applied to things that did stuff (not counting design patents) - utility patents. Machines that took something as input, ground through it, and produced something at the output.
But now you have written things that do machine things - software that is hardware (e.g., RTL). Software that replaces hardware (e.g., in machines where software replaces complex mechanical movements), software that creates hardware (3D printers). It's really never occurred before in the known history - we have created something revolutionary - software.
Hell, even in the old CNC days the CNC code was never an issue since they're usually customized for the machine and generated (either manually or through automation) from the basic CAD file.
We live in interesting times ,and really, IP laws need to be revised because we can't squeeze software as either a copyright or a patent thing - it just leads to the mess we're in now.
I expect to see a LOT of Ferraris on the road.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You know the difference between commercially manufacturing a product and an estate sale.
So does the law. An estate sale is not commercial use.
Precedent seems to imply that the resulting object cannot be controlled (e.g. the output of a GPLed program is not GPLed, so why should executing a program on a 3D printer be any different?)
What if the program is a quine?
It's often said around here that adding "on a computer" to an old invention doesn't make it a new invention.
Same with stealing. If someone earns their living designing things and selling those designs, you shouldn't steal them. Stealing on a computer is still stealing.
I think this is only going to get worse as things improve. When all you can make are low quality, tiny objects, of 1 (maybe 2 or 3) colours then nobody really cares too much if you copy their designs as you can't do anything terribly useful with them. But as the price comes down meaning they become more widely accessible, and the quality and size of output improves I believe companies and individuals will quickly become very interested in lobbying for IP laws against these printers.
Not that I want those laws mind you but given the way they are behaving with things such as movies and music I think it's inevitable.
Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
Mod points, where are you? I need you!
They can only be patented.
Therefore; whatever the license terms that apply to the design files --- they do not apply to the physical object you can print using them.
In as much as the object itself is not copyrightable.
In Ye Old Days, instead of selling objects themselves, it was common for people to sell the designs of objects to blacksmiths, and make their money that way. This is surely just taking back the rules to the dawn of industrialisation.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
A pdf file is a program, written in the postscript language, directing a 2D printer to create some 2D object. I can't print copies of someone's book and sell them without permission based on the argument that the book is the output of the PDF program.
I don't see how adding an extra D changes that. Some people, probably including Stallman, would say that authors (and programmers) SHOULD work for free, giving their stuff away. Maybe so. That doesn't mean they DO. This particular designer gave away his work to people who wanted to use it for non-commercial purposes. Good for him. He didn't give his work free to companies to use commercially. If you're going to make a living from my work, I get a cut, he decided. Fine, that's his decision.
Precedent seems to imply that the resulting object cannot be controlled (e.g. the output of a GPLed program is not GPLed, so why should executing a program on a 3D printer be any different?).
That's rubbish. If I write a program for producing content, the content is copyrighted as an original expression to the degree that it is an original expression. Its not automatically licensed if the producing program is, but it is copyrighted.
The question with "not automatically copyrighted" occurs with things like compilers, where the output of the compiler is a transformation of its input. In this case, the copyright state of the output hinges on the copyright of the corresponding input rather than the copyright of the compiler.
So of course, the relevant copyright of printed designs is that of the design, not of the printing software. There is no ambiguity whatsoever.
We can make a deal saying "I'll give you a hamburger if you agree to wash the dishes".
Can we not also make a deal saying "I'll give you my designs if you agree not to sell the objects I designed"?
I'd think that in a free society we'd be allowed to make that deal.
The designer believes that's the deal he made by applying the non-commercial CCL to the designs.
This isn't a new area of law. It's been litigated thoroughly by the third-party auto parts industry, which routinely makes copies of auto parts. Some auto companies have applied for design patents on some body parts, but to get a design patent, there has to be a significant difference over any other existing object. There are maybe 400 auto part design patents a year, and design patents are only good for 14 years.
It's different for decorative objects. Those can be copyrighted. But functional parts, no.
Can a scan of a real-world object be copyrighted when the scanned object is not? Not in the US. See Meshwerks vs. Toyota. A scan is not a creative work. It doesn't matter that it takes effort to create, and work to clean up. It's still not a creative work. The court followed the same line of reasoning as in Bridgeman vs. Corel, which established that photos of public domain 2D pictures cannot be copyrighted. (Despite much grumbling from the museum community, that decision has held up. Wikipedia relies on that. The National Portrait Gallery (UK) once threatened to sue Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't back down. The National Portrait Gallery did.) That decision in turn relied on the famous Supreme Court case Feist vs. Rural Telephone, which established that phone books are not copyrightable as a constitutional matter. "The threshold for originality is low, but it exists". That's why everybody has phone book data, map data, and similar databases now.
Once consumer-grade 3D printers get good enough that they're used for something more than turning out plastic game pieces, this problem will decrease.
I'd have modded him and you too. His statement is spot on.
God spoke to me
Sorry... my memory does not work nearly as well as the cut and paste buffer which had the URL in it. Did I ever botch a name... Osamu Tezuka.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
I believe you're right. An important connection, I think, is that copyright law says they can't download the design at all, until they get permission. They get permission through the contract, aka licence. So they don't legally have the design at all unless they have it by contract.
* recognizing that a) courts have a BROAD definition of "exchange of consideration", and have ruled that a promise to do or not do something is consideration and b) clearly the claimant provided consideration. You cannot often invalidate a contract by saying "I didn't pay him enough". Thus, the CCL agreement for the design is probably a contract.
The Law cannot be expected to deal with bizarre or paradoxical cases arises from people that insist on using weird licenses to protect their creations. What does "non-commercial" even mean? When the government goes after targets using laws with 'financial' constructs, it claims almost everything a Human might do has a financial value, even simply gaining a new friend.
How can simply printing out a design with no intent to directly sell the item be a 'commercial' use? Sure, the company 'gains' but so would anyone else using the design. I mean, if YOU used it, you would 'gain' from not having to pay for it. Does that money saving make your use 'commercial'?
It gets worse. Say the company gives away the objects it previously created for display. The person who receives the gift can hardly be prevented from selling it on.
Courts would have little sympathy with the clown that chose to use this license. It is not their job to unravel Gordian knots created by the complainant.
Surely the lesson learnt here is to insert a clause in FUTURE non-commercial licenses denying the rights to use the data set to create actual physical models. In the mean time, Nahmias should stop his childish whining - oh, i just noticed, he's one of those attention seeking perpetual victims form Israel- no wonder the owners of Slashdot are promoting this story. I guess it's time for Slashdot to roll out another Iran bashing story as the other side of this tedious propaganda ploy.
Perhaps they misunderstand CC licenses.
Maybe, maybe not. They were not selling the items. The items were on public display and there was no charge for viewing. The items were merely made by the printer they were selling. The CC license defines commercial use as "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." One could argue there is no commercial advantage since other 3D printers could create the same items, that the items merely familiarizes the viewer with what is possible with 3D printing in general. One could also argue that there is no monetary compensation for viewing the items and they are not being sold. I think there is ample room for misunderstanding the license, I'm just not sure which side is misunderstanding it.
Perhaps they are jerks.
Doubtful, they seem to be willing to keep things friendly. From the article: "Nahmais [IP owner] also posted an email exchange he said he had with Dan Yalon, executive vice president for business development and strategic marketing for Stratasys, in which Yalon says the company will be sure to ask for permission and give attribution in the future. In the email Yalon also agreed to donate a sum of money to a charity to make up for it, although Nahmias, via Twitter, said he's not sure if Stratasys has done so."
Ps - I realize that when I say the license is the contract, I'm assuming meeting of the minds. The license contract should be clear about printed renditions, so both parties know what they are agreeing to.
Stealing something is taking it away from the previous owner. Copy is by definition not theft.
The printed object itself may be unbound from copyright violation, but if the object is deemed art and the motion is considered the performance of said art, then will we inevitably end up with something like a Spotify for 3D printing?
The printed object itself may be unbound from copyright violation, but if the object is deemed art and the motion of the printer is considered the performance of said art, then will we inevitably end up with something like a Spotify for 3D printing? This would classify the live printing of the object as a violation.
Ps - I realize that when I say the license is the contract, I'm assuming meeting of the minds. The license contract should be clear about printed renditions, so both parties know what they are agreeing to.
But a license is _not_ a contract (not in US law; it may be in other places but there usually all the other laws are different as well). A license is something that gives you certain rights that you wouldn't have without a license. For copyrighted works, you would have very few rights if you didn't have a license.
If a right you would wish to have is not mentioned in the license, and you don't have the right by law, then you don't have that right.
The output of a compiler has been copyrightable for years.
This really isn't any different.
IMO, of course, neigher ought to be copyrightable: they are not expressive and you cannot learn the art from them.
HOWEVER, I'd let them both be copyrightable if the source was included, along with whatever special instruction is needed to compile a changed version.
THIS DOES NOT mean that you have the right to do so within the copyright terms (though a free software compatible license would explicitly allow this), but when the copyright lapses, you can then do so, which currently with programs that are closed source, cannot be. You can also learn how the result was implemented, and this will progress the useful arts without putting a brake on them for the lifetime of copyrights.
E.g. using the Macdonald M font, for an obvious example.
There are fonts out there whose license forbid you to use them without paying for the license. These fonts would be JUST AS ILLEGAL, but you don't complain about those, do you? Why?
Worse, with the GPL fonts, the standard practice is to get you to STOP abusing the copyright on them.
With commercial licensed fonts, the standard practice is to sue you for millions. AND get you to stop producing the work altogether.
Yet you don't complain about that, do you.
"IP law distinguishes between purely decorative and useful objects, but how should the digital files that provide a design for those objects be treated"
Then obviously the physical objects that are output are not covered by GPL, because you can't copyright a utilitarian item.
Also, the digital files are probably considered programs, so the precedent for vector fonts like TrueType versus a typeface, which cannot be covered by copyright, would be useful here. (at least in the US)
I dont really see the legal issue here.
There are already lots of precedences. Knitting designs are one. Even though the pattern may be reproduced (the "program" that tells you how to make the sweater), actually reproducing a patented work is still not legal, regardless of how you obtained the means to reproduce it.
While I'm not a US patent lawyer, I'm quite certain that infringement has nothing to do with the METHOD used to infringe on a patent or trademark. And lets face it, 3D printing is just a tool.
Sure, there may be some IP associated with the program running on the printer (well, not here, as the author has decided to give the program away), but that doesn't exempt the resulting work from copyright law....
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
It would have the MS license terms (only one computer, has to phone home to ask if it can start, collects information, comes with a million dollar fine if you are deemed to be pirating it, no reverse engineering or analysis) apply.
The GPL is no more viral than any other copyright license, because the virus is the copyright law. Not the license.
Like the output of a program? It's a physical object. Of cause it's to be considered like a photocopied book
Get rid of copyrights if it's used for non-profit means. This includes source code, chemical compounds, patents, etc... It's the only way that we'll be able to put greed aside and get ahead.
I don't understand what's the principal difference between a 3D printer and some other type of machine for manufacturing physical objects regarding IP laws. A press o lathe can also be controlled by a computer, you can load designes in it.
Precedent seems to imply that the resulting object cannot be controlled (e.g. the output of a GPLed program is not GPLed, so why should executing a program on a 3D printer be any different?).
Don't you hate it when those "power-users" in your company talk about computers? Does it make you cringe when they mix and abuse tech terms that make them look smart to the other users who have no idea what they're talking about, but to you, a real techie, it just hurts you inside?
Guess what, it's the same with law. Those who know about the law cringe when they hear those crappy pseudo-smart comments from the geeks and nerds who think they got it, but they don't.
The output of a software does not fall under the license of the software nor is it covered by the copyright that covers the software. However that does not mean it exists in a legal vacuum. If I write a piece of software that, in whichever way, creates a precise copy of Harry Potter as its output, that resulting text is still legally a copy of Harry Potter and me publishing it as a book would run afoul of copyright law.
That is what copyright law is about. You can't legally copy stuff that is copyrighted by someone else without his permission. It doesn't matter if you copy it with a photocopier, or by taking a picture, or by hand the way the bible was copied through the middle ages. It is the resulting copy that is governed by the law, not the means of getting it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I have some crochet patterns out there under Creative Commons. What would happen if a corporation used them to make money?
Well the GP shouldn't be using such words, because they're equivalent to:
There is a principle of mutual exclusion between patents and copyright, in that what is patentable is not copyrightable, and what is copyrightable is not patentable. The distinction stems from patents covering ideas whereas copyright covers concrete expressions only, and by definition an idea can never be a concrete expression.
That makes the GP's looseness in language not only wrong but very strong disinformation.
It's the court system, as gamed by the cartels, that say that you need a license to use a copyrighted work.
The Berne convention specifically and explicitly says not.
Wouldn't that be the same as say an OEM for injection molding machines demanding royalties on every part, containing any of their molded parts, put on a car?
"There is a principle of mutual exclusion between patents and copyright"
And I'm not talking about patents, so you shouldn't be using that term.
"in that what is patentable is not copyrightable"
Wrong. Software patents, ring a bell?
"and what is copyrightable is not patentable"
But what is copyrightable is copyrightable.
And it is the idea contained in an expressive work (which is where patents and copyrights are different: patents do not have to be expressive, but they DO have to be functional) which is protected by copyright.
If it were only the copyright of the absolute text then there would be no restriction on derivative works, sampling, or mixing, since these do not produce the same expression as the original, therefore cannot, by your assertion, be claimed infringing.
We saw this coming a mile away - so did the Makerbot guy who sold out to Stratasys.
Not sure of the time of death for 3D printing, but the locale will be the Rocket Docket of East Texas.
Um. If you 'execute the output of a 2D JPG' you get a printed picture, which is sure as fuck copyrightable. If you 'execute the output of a 3D model file' you get a printed model. Why isn't that as copyrightable/ed as a picture is? Are you deliberately being retarded or something? End of discussion.
Without a copyright license, you have no right to things that copyright controls, but things that copyright does NOT control are not required without license.
Since copyright is about the right to create copies for distribition, EVERYTHING that is absent that is, a priory and absent a specific clause in the rights reserved to copyright holders, entirely and 100% allowed without a license.
I can lend a book (or any copyrighted work) without needing a license, since this is not controlled by copyright.
I can give a way or sell it.
I can modify it for my personal use.
I can destroy or archive it away.
I can quote it.
I can learn from it.
I can critique it and teach from it.
And they do not require a license AT ALL to do.
This confusion will continue until the courts resolve it under the implied license doctrine. When a copy of a copyrighted work is sold, it comes with an implied license to use it. If I buy a video, then I get an unstated license that I can use it to watch it while eating a pizza after work. Same thing with a CD or an MP3: I get to play it when I like. In both cases, I don't get a license to perform the work to an audience, i.e. to open a movie theater playing my $20 video from the store. It's the same thing with a 3D plan/plot/instructions/whatever. If I purchased it, then the seller also gave an implied license to use it for its intended purpose, to make whatever the 3D instructions were intended to make.
Or at least, that's what the man page for the copy of TeX on my NeXT Cube stated.
This isn't much different from that.
The company, as a commercial entity, has to accept that they don't have unrestricted access to items which are licensed under a non-commercial license --- they either need to comply w/ the license (properly attributing it in this case), or draw up their own version.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Although you are in theory correct on your facts, in practical application it is not so for digital works. Digital works are more flexible, allowing anything from pay-per-view to WTFPL.
You can do none of those things without first obtaining a copy and thereby dealing with copy rights. As Kindle and Nook users know, at that point each capability you listed above is negotiable. You can pay $65 to fully purchase a dead-tree edition of the book, or you can choose to pay $1 to rent the book for a day. Only the $65 copy can be loaned out. That's nothing new, really movie tickets are the same way - you can watch the movie, but not loan it to a friend. For twice the cost of the ticket, you can get the DVD, which is loanable. It's up to you what capabilities you want to actually have, or whether you want to save a few bucks. That choice is made when you get your copy, right?
You've forgotten to layer on the fact that the designer has offered a general license to manufacture copies of the design so long as it is for non-commercial purposes -- a "Creative Commons - Attribution - NON Commercial License" (version not specified). You need to analyze whether the manufacturing -- not a sufficiently separated subsequent use -- of the copy violates the license. Nahmias seems to believe that his license controls subsequent use of the design. That is not true.
Copyright law does not give the designer of a sculptural work the ability to control the public display of copies owned by others. If you own it, you can display it. 17 USC 109(c). The other exclusive rights under copyright pertain to the creation of copies, not their subsequent use. 17 USC 106.
If the objects were created for display in a trade show, then there is an argument that they were created in breach of the license. However, if the objects were printed without the intent to sell them, use them for advertising, etc., there is a good argument that their initial creation did not violate the license -- which prohibits creating copies "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation" -- and that later use for "commercial advantage" is not a copyright violation. It's the sort of grey area that drives the typical Slashdot reader nuts as they try to find the sharp separation between permitted and prohibited -- and come up with increasingly crazy ways to try to bend/break the rule ("What if you print 100 copies without intending to sell them, and then 5 minutes later decide to sell them...").
The "Restrictions" section of the CC BY-NC license is not a contract signed by the person using the design or a subsequent purchaser of what was made. It is only enforceable if what is prohibited is also prohibited by copyright law, and the designer cannot retroactively revoke the license after the physical object has been made. Stratasys did not "screw[] up, pure and simple." You would need to know much more concerning when and why the design was made before you can conclude that they've violated the license.
"why should executing a program be any different?"
Copying is copying.
The output of a 3D printer should be treated the same as the output of a 2D printer.
it's more like if using a cc licensed phrase was ok to use in marketing materials for a printer.
there's pretty much a consensus that using gpl to print an object doesn't make the object gpl.. most cheap printers run oss.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I don't understand what's the principal difference between a 3D printer and some other type of machine for manufacturing physical objects regarding IP laws. A press o lathe can also be controlled by a computer, you can load designes in it.
well the real point is that CC licenses are really iffy in practice. they're not selling the objects, remember, they're just using a picture of the object in marketing materials.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So don't commercial companies have to honour the no-commerce licensing of individuals?
They can't have it both ways.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
No, it's called copy right because because it's the right to make a copy. It has zip to do with giving or recieving. You'll notice that "RIAA like bullshit" gets you busted in court because that's the law of the land and has been for centuries. That was law before the phrase "copy right" was used as a shorthand term for it.
You might not LIKE the law, but that's the law. If you don't like it, go back and talk to Queen Elizabeth.
An image file is nothing more the instructions to a graphics program of how to produce an image. It is the image that is copyrighted NOT the graphics file. That why re-encoding a file doesn't change its copyright. You might as well claim that the light emitting from your screen isn't the copyright image...
IF you want to challenge this, you should seek the "recipe" route. US copyright does NOT allow recipes that are mere listings of ingredients to be copyrighted. Is an image/CAD/MP3 file not merely a listing of inputs to the cook/graphics program/CAD/music player? Bit X tells the speaker magnet to move to position Y and foila, sound emerges same as if I combine eggs with milk and heat, an omelet comes out.
But this idea is nothing new, smarter people then me have thought about this AND come to the conclusion it doesn't work like this. A movie file is NOT a recipe for a light show on your monitor. It isn't the instructions that are copyrighted, it is the art. A CAD file for a simple ball is not copyrightable, a figurine is.
And this makes common sense because right now it is NOT allowed to scan a figure and reproduce it. So why should a CAD file, which could easily be produced by scanning not be copyrightable under existing laws?
I am not making a judgement here on right or wrong, I think the copyright system sucks BUT as it is now, 3D printing of other peoples creations falls under copyright infringement if they did not give you permission or made the designs open to all.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In the end, there is nothing new here. Some designs have licenses.
:D
The underlying issue, yes, long resolved (we've had CNCs for decades, does all of Slashdot think these issues haven't already come up to some degree?).
The specifics here interest me more than the general score-vs-performance principle - In this case, we have an otherwise-permissive noncommercial use license on the designs. Even CC's website refuses to make a concrete stand as to what that really means.
If Stratasys had sold the models they produced, we'd have a much clearer situation here... But they didn't. They simply used them as not-for-sale examples of what their printers can do. Does that count as commercial use or not?
As the closest analogy I can think of, do you need to own the rights to Beethoven to demo your for-sale audio system playing his 5th? But even that falls short, because while any particular performance of that work most likely has a straight-up copyright on it, in this case we have an intentionally less restrictive license involved.
Then again, personally, I just don't care. Stereotypical or not, I very much fall into the Slashdot standard of "rule however you want, we'll still just copy it anyway".
That would work, if the judge were a complete moron. More like:
Fred and Jim select a design, looking under the category "CCL - not for commercial use".
Fred and Jim render it.
Fred and Jim knowingly use it for commercial use, in violation of the license they voluntarily agreed to.
Fred and Jim insult the judge's intelligence claiming that neither Jim nor Fred had any idea what the other was doing.
Fred and Jim end up paying treble damages.
You said "easy to circumvent". It's generally not a good idea to try to "circumvent" the law.
That only changes you from a law-breaker to a smartass law-breaker.
> But a license is _not_ a contract (not in US law; it may be in other places but there usually all the other laws are different as well).
I suspect you're thinking of a EULA hidden inside the box, which the customer can't read, and therefore can't agree to, before purchasing the boxed software.
Since the buyer didn't agree to the contract prior to purchase, it's unenforcable.
> A license is something that gives you certain rights that you wouldn't have without a license.
Something tat gives you certain rights is also a contract, in most cases. More specifically, a contract is something that gives you certain rights, in exchange for something, which you accept, on purpose. So a license is also a contract if a) it imposes some condition on the recipient, b) is accepted by the recipient and c) both parties intend to "strike a deal", to get the advantages offered by the license contract.
The elements of a contract, in simplest terms:
person A: I'll do X (or let you do X) if you do Y.
person B: Okay, I agree, I'll do Y.
A contract that is also a license:
person A: I'll give you a right to copy my work, if you refrain from commercial use. (Creative commons license, non-commercial)
person B: Clicks "I agree to the license"
The only questionable part is whether person B, in agreeing to the CCL, agreed not to render the design for commercial purposes.
They may have meant that they agreed not to sell the design itself. Clear wording in the license will fix that.
In a specific case, there may be emails where the licensee said they understood the license agreement to mean they couldn't
use the design, including printed copies, for commercial purposes. If so, they are in violation of the agreement. They made a
deal, they understood the deal they made, and they violated the deal.
If you don't want others to use your design, get a design patent. They are made exactly for that purpose.
> But a license is _not_ a contract (not in US law; it may be in other places but there usually all the other laws are different as well).
I suspect you're thinking of a EULA hidden inside the box, which the customer can't read, and therefore can't agree to, before purchasing the boxed software.
Since the buyer didn't agree to the contract prior to purchase, it's unenforcable.
> A license is something that gives you certain rights that you wouldn't have without a license.
Something that gives you certain rights is also a contract, in many cases. More specifically, a contract is something that gives you certain rights, in exchange for something, which you accept, on purpose. So a license is also a contract if a) it imposes some condition on the recipient, b) is accepted by the recipient and c) both parties intend to "strike a deal", to get the advantages offered by the license contract.
The elements of a contract, in simplest terms:
person A: I'll do X (or let you do X) if you do Y.
person B: Okay, I agree, I'll do Y.
A contract that is also a license:
person A: I'll give you a right to copy my work, if you refrain from commercial use. (Creative commons license, non-commercial)
person B: Clicks "I agree to the license"
The only questionable part is whether person B, in agreeing to the CCL, agreed not to render the design for commercial purposes.
They may have meant that they agreed not to sell the design itself. Clear wording in the license will fix that.
In a specific case, there may be emails where the licensee said they understood the license agreement to mean they couldn't
use the design, including printed copies, for commercial purposes. If so, they are in violation of the agreement. They made a
deal, they understood the deal they made, and they violated the deal.
So how is this different from me making a design for a cool look on a tshirt, or a skateboard, or whatever, saying you can't use it for commercial use, then having you print out and sell tshirts? Or use my logo as advertising printed out to entice people into your tshirt printing shop? The fact that it's a multi layer process isn't even new - screen printing has worked that way for ages.
> So what? the printer maker should apologize for not having understood the author of the design and make a deal. If they DID
> understand the author and worked around his wish, they should apologize louder. Failure to comply with the above has repercussion
> in MY opinion of such a company, I don't want to be their customer.
Indeed. Working out disagreements in a respectful, humble way is a sign of being what's called a "grown up".
"I'm sorry I offended you" is a sentence we should all use often, right along with "how can I help?"
The MacDonald's M is trademarked. That's a completely separate issue.
-> (e.g. the output of a GPLed program is not GPLed, so why should executing a program on a 3D printer be any different?)
The output of a GPL program (a compiler for example) might not be governed by the license on the program, but might be governed by the license on the source file (the design). I can't take Open Source code, compile it with a GPL compiler and sell it for profit without including the source and attribution because "the output of a GPLed program is not GPLed".
I can't use the IBM logo for my own personal use because I 2D printed it myself. Manufacturing does not wash away any need to respect I.P. rights.
Except knitting, crochet etc. patterns are expressed as a set of instructions to create an object. Design files for 3D printed objects are most often shared in a format that describes an object (usually a set of planes and vertices STL, or geometric constructs CAD).
I think the better parallel to draw is to blueprints. They don't tell you how to make something, but the physical measurements.
You're right. I would feel so violated if someone hacked into my PC, downloaded everything I created, and then deleted it all. Fortunately, I've not yet once seen a pirate group ever accused of this! Amazing...
> If I inherit a sculpture from my grandfather, can I sell it?
..."
Yes, that's not commercial production of the sculpture. You know the difference between a garage sale and a factory.
What makes you think judges don't? Note you can sell a book in your garage sale too, there's nothing new here.
> If someone gives me a sculpture, can I put it on the shelf behind the counter in my shop?
Again, of course, nothing new here. Unless of course you agree not to put it up for public display.
Then your question becomes "can I make a contract agreeing to do something, then disregard my agreement?"
> It's ridiculous, and I don't think that a judge would uphold that a licence on a design could restrict use of the physical object that that design describes.
The binary code on a DVD describes pictures on a screen. "Licensed for private home exhibition only
I agree, the 3D printer part is a red herring. There's nothing even remotely new here. May as well talk about hammer and chisel and a block of marble.
However what may be confusing is what it means to be licensed for "no commercial advantage". Selling copies of the object would be right out, but would just displaying the object as an example of what could be made with a commercial product count as commercial advantage? Could you include a picture of the object in an advertisement for a chisel? Of course it may seem perfectly clear to some non-lawyers but would this really hold up in court? What if I printed the object for my private use but then I died and someone inherited that piece of art, could they then display it in their store window to attract customers?
(On the other hand, it is a bit odd for the artist who freely shares non-commercially goes and removes all designs from a 3d printing sight just because someone used it commercially; this seems the opposite of sharing. It seems the artist gives less priority to the thousands of users using the object appropriately than the one user who did it incorrectly.
"If someone designs things and makes a living selling those designs ..."
Guess what. When you take away someone's livelihood, you're taking something from them.
Stealing my car would damage me much less than stealing my life's work, the things I've spent years authoring. I understand you want "free" stuff, so you try hard to convince yourself you're not really stealing. The thing is, at some level you not only know that what you're doing in theft, you know what that makes you - a thief. That may be why you're a sarcastic jackass - because knowing that you're a thief puts a man in a bad mood. When you stop being a thief, life is far more pleasant, because you know you really are who you wish to be.
I'll listen to the Supreme Court over some random internet jackass... and the Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement IS NOT STEALING.
If you don't like that FACT, take it up with SCOTUS.
This space available.
If you're getting that from the textbook first sale case, read the opinion you think you're citing. The ruling was that selling a book you've bought is neither copyright infringement nor theft.
On the other hand:
In Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and OConnor, said, "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
That's just the most recent time they said copyright
infringement is stealing just as much as any other form of stealing. Seriously, the best way to convince yourself that you're not a thief is to stop stealing.
So Nahmias aka Dizingof suddenly becomes famous from companies like Stratasys showcasing his designs as some of the best in the field, showing the capabilities of the top end machines, and so he turns round and in return for all this free publicity, decides to sue. What a wanker. If it were not for Stratasys, we would never have heard of the guy. Crawl back into your fucking hole you miserable little ingrate.