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?).

Comments

How is this different from a carving?

[HockeyPuck]

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?

Re:How is this different from a carving?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes, you would. The difference hear is that 3D printing opens up a whole market for these devices where only a few people can or willing to carve stuff out of wood. Those that do are low enough to fly under the radar sort of speak. So it's not an issue now."

That is not a valid comparison. You aren't manually squirting plastic out of a tube and shaping it, either.

It is much more like making a part with a CNC machine.

See my comment further up about what laws cover what. This general issue has already been tackled by the courts (a long time ago, actually), and it is pretty well settled.

No...

[Tyler Eaves]

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.

Knitting, crocheting, needlepoint, sewing,quilting

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this has already been covered by existing laws about patterns, etc?

Re:Like source code

[Jane Q. Public]

"The cad files or what ever they are to the object as source code is to a binary."

Quite. 3D printer instructions are nothing more than a form of CAD file, which is a copywritable, WRITTEN work.

Items printed are no more than any other physical object made from a CAD drawing. You can't copyright the actual part (but you can get a design patent if it applies).

There is nothing new here.

Re:Like source code

[Jane Q. Public]

"Even if it's original and creative, the utility doctrine still applies to sculptural works: only the non-useful portions are copyrightable, and that's only if they're separable from the useful portions. If the gear had a decorative pattern on the side, the pattern might be protectable, but not the gear."

An object made from a CAD drawing (or 3D printer instructions, which are, by long precedent, legally exactly the same thing) are not "sculptural works". They are parts made from instructions.

You can make a set of instructions to get a CNC machine to carve out a sculptural work, too. If you made the instructions, fine. Copyright them. If you created a "sculpture" from them, copyright or get a design patent for that, too. But the instructions are completely different things, and subject to completely different laws, from the finished object. And there is no need for it to be any other way.

There is nothing new here.