Copyright Drama Reaches 3D Printing World 258
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?).
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [theage.com.au]
Re:How is this different from a carving? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think if you were handy with a paint brush and drew Disney's copyrighted characters on a T-shirt and tried to sell them, I bet you will receive a letter from a Disney lawyer.
I am aware of one person who was a Disney fan and drew Lion King characters on her own shirt - no money or sales involved - and she was denied admission to Disneyland on the basis of what she had drawn on her own shirt with her own hand for her own enjoyment. ( It was damn good work if I say so myself - not offensive at all ). Meanwhile kids were getting into the park wearing all sorts of offensive shirts...
I do not know if you were drawing a lion, at what point does the lion become Simba?
Phrase "...with a 3D printer" confuses weak minds. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 law isn't a moron (Score:4, Insightful)
You know the difference between commercially manufacturing a product and an estate sale.
So does the law. An estate sale is not commercial use.
PDFs are programs for printing 2D objects (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Like source code (Score:5, Insightful)
"If its a tangible, three dimensional object, in which the allegedly copyrightable aspects of it are embodied in the shape of its overall physical form, it's got to be either a sculptural or architectural work"
Not at all.
People have been making "written" instructions for CNC machines for many years, CAD drawings (which are legally the same thing) for many more years, blueprints for machine parts for many more years, player piano rolls for many years before that, and punch cards for looms for hundreds of years. (Machine instructions in these forms are considered copyrightable WRITTEN works.) But that doesn't make a milled steel machine part either architecture or art. Or a rug, for that mater. It is arguable that some rugs are art, but many aren't.
My point though is that generally, an end physical product is legally separate from the instructions for making it.