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?).

Re:How is this different from a carving?

[Xicor]

only if you could make an exact replica with your skill and try to sell it. if you try to sell it as the original, it would be forgery. if you try to sell it as your own it would be copyright infringement

Re:Like source code

[Jane Q. Public]

To clarify:

The instructions (or CAD drawing) are copyrightable. If the finished object is considered a work of art, it is also copywritable (but separately from the CAD or instruction file). If the final object is an object of utility, it might get a utility or design patent.

But those are all separate things. I have seen here on Slashdot a lot of people confusing them. There is no need to confuse them, or to pass new laws, as we have had this capability, in somewhat different forms, for hundreds of years. We have already had all the necessary lawsuits and court cases to establish perfectly good law and precedent for these activities.

Re:Contract for copyrighted work, freedom

[Jane Q. Public]

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.