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...
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
Surely this has already been covered by existing laws about patterns, etc?
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.
You know the difference between commercially manufacturing a product and an estate sale.
So does the law. An estate sale is not commercial use.
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.
In the US, the answer is no. Typefaces are not copyrightable. A computer program that can be used to output a typeface can be copyrightable. So something like a PostScript font file could be protected, but the letter shapes it outputs cannot be, and if you traced the output to make a new font file, you'd be in the clear. The name may be trademarked, however, so be prepared to change it. And specific typefaces may be eligible for design patents, which can be infringed on no matter how copied, so watch out for that. Here's the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Southern_Software,_Inc.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
Can we not also make a deal saying "I'll give you my designs if you agree not to sell the objects I designed"?
Probably, but that's not the kind of situation I was directly addressing.
A deal like that is a contract, as long as there is consideration on BOTH sides... something a lot of people tend to forget. I'm not saying there isn't any here, I'm just reminding that it is necessary. Okay. So as long as there is consideration and the agreement does not otherwise violate law, it's a contract.
But contracts have nothing to do with copyright law. (Except that First Sale Doctrine says there are certain kinds of contracts you can't make... and I don't think that applies here.) But what I was referring to was copyright law. The fact that an artist might enforce copyright on his drawing does not mean he can automatically enforce it on a physical object made from that drawing. By law they are two different things.
But again, that's aside from any agreement. I don't know of any reason that agreement would not be valid, if indeed that is the agreement that was made.
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.
Why? If I design something, I don't want you to print that without paying me.
This is the equivalent to the argument; "Here, I'll let you see all my recipes, and you can even save my cookbook to your computer."
But don't you dare think about making blueberry muffins and having a bake sale; I will demand a cut from every muffin you bake using my design!
How can you print the object if you don't have permission to have a copy of the plans? Seems like copyrighted plans would prevent us from even having to argue about the resulting object.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
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.
You don't think promotional or advertising use amounts to commercial advantage?
Why are they doing it then, for teh lulz?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The legal system has been able to handle this for many decades before 3D printers were ever created. It's not like 3D printers are the first machines to ever create objects from a digital description.