OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

tjhowse
Hi all,

Slightly OT, but I published some SCAD code and models on thingiverse
a while back under CC-BY. I recently found someone was selling
something very similar to my design without attribution to my work. I
sent a friendly email mentioning the license under which I published
the work. They replied and they said they'd based their design on
mine, but had re-created it from scratch. I responded and said that as
far as I was concerned a from-scratch recreation freed him of any
obligations of attribution.

I don't particularly care either way. There's very little ego or money
on the line, so it's mostly an academic enterprise for me. Can anyone
fill me in on what constitutes a derivative or adaptation when it
comes to 3D models? Is a from-scratch recreation of the model
sufficient? The recreation has some slight differences: The overall
geometry is almost identical but there are some surface markings on
the top that differ.

Thanks,
Travis.
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

MichaelAtOz
Administrator
Read this

Re someone selling your design;
CC is useless for 3D designs, the fundamentals of CC is copyright, you can't copyright a design.
If you have a patent you can do something.
If you have a registered design, you can do something, IF it looks the same, not looks similar.
If you have a trademark, you may be able to do something, depending.

But for home 3D you/they can't do much to stop home printing of almost anything... ;)
Admin - email* me if you need anything,
or if I've done something stupid...
* click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work.
Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.


The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ time is running out!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

MichaelAtOz
Administrator
I am not a lawyer
Admin - email* me if you need anything,
or if I've done something stupid...
* click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work.
Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.


The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ time is running out!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

MichaelAtOz
Administrator
p.s. CC-BY is politeness
Admin - email* me if you need anything,
or if I've done something stupid...
* click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work.
Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.


The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ time is running out!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

MichaelAtOz
Administrator
Clarification: IF your design is a work-of-art, then copyright could be relevant and a derivative work would be protected (ie in your favour).
Admin - email* me if you need anything,
or if I've done something stupid...
* click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work.
Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.


The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ time is running out!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

Alan Cox
In reply to this post by MichaelAtOz
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 21:10:43 -0800 (PST)
MichaelAtOz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Read  this <http://opus.bath.ac.uk/18661/2/bradshaw.pdf>  

It's not that simple. Especially for OpenSCAD.
 
> Re someone selling your design;
> CC is useless for 3D designs, the fundamentals of CC is copyright, you can't
> copyright a design.

It's not that simple - the truth is closer to "nobody knows, and we break
the legal system"

> If you have a patent you can do something.

No - because you can't afford the cost. You can forget enforcing a patent
without $10million in small change

> If you have a registered design, you can do something, IF it looks the same,
> not looks similar.

If you have $10million in small change

> If you have a trademark, you may be able to do something, depending.

Maybe - if you pick your jurisdiction carefully

A better place to discuss CC and 3D designs would be the CC lists I think.

Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

Alan Cox
In reply to this post by tjhowse
> I don't particularly care either way. There's very little ego or money
> on the line, so it's mostly an academic enterprise for me. Can anyone
> fill me in on what constitutes a derivative or adaptation when it
> comes to 3D models? Is a from-scratch recreation of the model
> sufficient? The recreation has some slight differences: The overall
> geometry is almost identical but there are some surface markings on
> the top that differ.

That is to say the least "complicated" (you need an IP lawyer but truth
is the best they are likely to be able to tell you is 'we have little
caselaw' (ie even the legal system hasn't got a clue what will happen)

If your resulting 3D object has artistic or creative elements then it is
probably 'sculpture' as far as the law is concerned, but that may vary by
country. That gives you a set of country specific rights which include in
many countries the rights to control who may photograph it unless on
permanent public display. I suspect (but you'll need to talk to an IP
lawyer in your location) that these rights will be the ones most relevant
to a "copy" that was made 'from scratch'. Likewise they govern things
like laser scanning and making a new version of the sculpture or resin
casting copies.

If it is functional (eg a bolt) then patent law would apply, but only in
some countries and situations.

If it is functional but has some clever design element then it may be
eligible for design rights (design patent in the USA) but that in most
countries only covers commercial reuse so you can make your own.

If it's a functional object with an artistic design on it then it may
depend what is copied. Eg if I copy your screw but remove the logo
although intuitively its a deeply offensive act to rip my credit off a
work, in law its actually probably what makes it legal to then copy the
functional object that had my logo on!

If it has a trademarked element on it then trademark law may apply but
again usually only for commercial use, but you'd probably remove the mark
anyway. The obvious exception being printing things like fake logos.

There are also other rights, so putting my name on it when you made it
would not be allowed for example. In some cases removing the creators
identifier may also be forbidden.

As it's a physical object first sale doctrines are likely to apply - so
once its in physical form and sold to me then I can re-sell the physical
object, saw it up, and so on - but probably not make copies.

The OpenSCAD file is probably a computer program. So irrespective of the
object produced would (if it has enough of a creative element) be
protected by copyright law. In some broken parts of the world (eg the
USSA) it may also be tangled in with software and business method
patents. A computer program that machines screws is likely copyrightable
even if the screws and the machine are not. The case of someone taking the
OpenSCAD file and editing it is probably the simplest - *if* OpenSCAD is
a computer program. It sits in a curious space on the edge.

The STL file is produced by compiling the computer program so it is
arguably object code. However it's also a representation of data about the
physical object (a database). So I imagine the lawyers would end up
arguing a lot about what it actually was (and therefore which bucket of
copyright/patent/etc) it ended up in. An STL of a scanned object for
example might be a database of facts, or a derivative of the scanned
object or both. I've not seen any caselaw to sort that mess out because
it's simultaneously arguably a load of conflicting legal classes. One day
some big corporations will fight over it and a senior court will make a
learned decision (or quite possibly just blindly guess) as to how the
division works.

The STL is turned into g-code (which is probably a computer program but
may not be creative if the STL isnt)

The derivative question is hard. There is a lot of law on derivative
works and it is sometimes very counter-intuitive. Beyond the obvious ends
of the spectrum it really does need a lawyer, and usually they will tell
you "stick to the obvious ends" or to ask permission to be sure.

This btw is one reason things like using CC does matter rather than just
saying "we don't know" or "we don't think the law covers this". Copyright
cases are likely to consider any public obvious intent of the creator as
part of a case. A thing called "estoppel" also bars you from going after
someone after promising not to. Thus putting CC-* on a work you want to
be shared actually helps hugely. It means the person wanting to use it
doesn't have to second guess your intent or take a perceived legal risk.

So if copyright does apply then your CC license deals with it, if not
then it did no harm adding it. And if in doubt ask.

I am *not* a lawyer, but I spend far too much time dealing with them. My
world btw is even more complicated. I make models of existing physical
functional objects (Railway locomotives for example) using openscad
(which is software) to produce a model (which is apparently a sculpture).
Quite how all the rights and the like work on the different bits world is
an even bigger barrel of laughs.

Much of this stuff is not actually new. It's been bouncing around since
before 3D printing was invented because it impacts things like 2D fold up
paper models just as much. At least some of the corner cases (notably
masks for silicon chips) got legal bodge fixes implemented by governments.

Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

G. Wade Johnson
Alan,

I don't know about anyone else, but I really appreciated this summary.

I only thought I was confused about the legal issues. You have
helpfully confirmed that suspicion.<grin/>

Seriously though, I think your comment about intent helps me the most.
I was struggling with this on some derivatives that I was working on
and this solidifies what was worrying me.

Thanks again,
G. Wade

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:53:30 +0000
Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I don't particularly care either way. There's very little ego or
> > money on the line, so it's mostly an academic enterprise for me.
> > Can anyone fill me in on what constitutes a derivative or
> > adaptation when it comes to 3D models? Is a from-scratch recreation
> > of the model sufficient? The recreation has some slight
> > differences: The overall geometry is almost identical but there are
> > some surface markings on the top that differ.
>
> That is to say the least "complicated" (you need an IP lawyer but
> truth is the best they are likely to be able to tell you is 'we have
> little caselaw' (ie even the legal system hasn't got a clue what will
> happen)
>
> If your resulting 3D object has artistic or creative elements then it
> is probably 'sculpture' as far as the law is concerned, but that may
> vary by country. That gives you a set of country specific rights
> which include in many countries the rights to control who may
> photograph it unless on permanent public display. I suspect (but
> you'll need to talk to an IP lawyer in your location) that these
> rights will be the ones most relevant to a "copy" that was made 'from
> scratch'. Likewise they govern things like laser scanning and making
> a new version of the sculpture or resin casting copies.
>
> If it is functional (eg a bolt) then patent law would apply, but only
> in some countries and situations.
>
> If it is functional but has some clever design element then it may be
> eligible for design rights (design patent in the USA) but that in most
> countries only covers commercial reuse so you can make your own.
>
> If it's a functional object with an artistic design on it then it may
> depend what is copied. Eg if I copy your screw but remove the logo
> although intuitively its a deeply offensive act to rip my credit off a
> work, in law its actually probably what makes it legal to then copy
> the functional object that had my logo on!
>
> If it has a trademarked element on it then trademark law may apply but
> again usually only for commercial use, but you'd probably remove the
> mark anyway. The obvious exception being printing things like fake
> logos.
>
> There are also other rights, so putting my name on it when you made it
> would not be allowed for example. In some cases removing the creators
> identifier may also be forbidden.
>
> As it's a physical object first sale doctrines are likely to apply -
> so once its in physical form and sold to me then I can re-sell the
> physical object, saw it up, and so on - but probably not make copies.
>
> The OpenSCAD file is probably a computer program. So irrespective of
> the object produced would (if it has enough of a creative element) be
> protected by copyright law. In some broken parts of the world (eg the
> USSA) it may also be tangled in with software and business method
> patents. A computer program that machines screws is likely
> copyrightable even if the screws and the machine are not. The case of
> someone taking the OpenSCAD file and editing it is probably the
> simplest - *if* OpenSCAD is a computer program. It sits in a curious
> space on the edge.
>
> The STL file is produced by compiling the computer program so it is
> arguably object code. However it's also a representation of data
> about the physical object (a database). So I imagine the lawyers
> would end up arguing a lot about what it actually was (and therefore
> which bucket of copyright/patent/etc) it ended up in. An STL of a
> scanned object for example might be a database of facts, or a
> derivative of the scanned object or both. I've not seen any caselaw
> to sort that mess out because it's simultaneously arguably a load of
> conflicting legal classes. One day some big corporations will fight
> over it and a senior court will make a learned decision (or quite
> possibly just blindly guess) as to how the division works.
>
> The STL is turned into g-code (which is probably a computer program
> but may not be creative if the STL isnt)
>
> The derivative question is hard. There is a lot of law on derivative
> works and it is sometimes very counter-intuitive. Beyond the obvious
> ends of the spectrum it really does need a lawyer, and usually they
> will tell you "stick to the obvious ends" or to ask permission to be
> sure.
>
> This btw is one reason things like using CC does matter rather than
> just saying "we don't know" or "we don't think the law covers this".
> Copyright cases are likely to consider any public obvious intent of
> the creator as part of a case. A thing called "estoppel" also bars
> you from going after someone after promising not to. Thus putting
> CC-* on a work you want to be shared actually helps hugely. It means
> the person wanting to use it doesn't have to second guess your intent
> or take a perceived legal risk.
>
> So if copyright does apply then your CC license deals with it, if not
> then it did no harm adding it. And if in doubt ask.
>
> I am *not* a lawyer, but I spend far too much time dealing with them.
> My world btw is even more complicated. I make models of existing
> physical functional objects (Railway locomotives for example) using
> openscad (which is software) to produce a model (which is apparently
> a sculpture). Quite how all the rights and the like work on the
> different bits world is an even bigger barrel of laughs.
>
> Much of this stuff is not actually new. It's been bouncing around
> since before 3D printing was invented because it impacts things like
> 2D fold up paper models just as much. At least some of the corner
> cases (notably masks for silicon chips) got legal bodge fixes
> implemented by governments.
>
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


--
Bugs thrive on poor housekeeping and inadequate hygine. Where one is
tolerated, many are found.                         -- Rick Hoselton
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

Peter Falke
Thank you, MichaelAtOz for the link:




 <http://opus.bath.ac.uk/18661/2/bradshaw.pdf>

Travis, would you mind sharing the link to the part in question?

Thnaks,

TakeItAndRun



2014-03-07 16:26 GMT+01:00 G. Wade Johnson <[hidden email]>:
Alan,

I don't know about anyone else, but I really appreciated this summary.

I only thought I was confused about the legal issues. You have
helpfully confirmed that suspicion.<grin/>

Seriously though, I think your comment about intent helps me the most.
I was struggling with this on some derivatives that I was working on
and this solidifies what was worrying me.

Thanks again,
G. Wade

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:53:30 +0000
Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I don't particularly care either way. There's very little ego or
> > money on the line, so it's mostly an academic enterprise for me.
> > Can anyone fill me in on what constitutes a derivative or
> > adaptation when it comes to 3D models? Is a from-scratch recreation
> > of the model sufficient? The recreation has some slight
> > differences: The overall geometry is almost identical but there are
> > some surface markings on the top that differ.
>
> That is to say the least "complicated" (you need an IP lawyer but
> truth is the best they are likely to be able to tell you is 'we have
> little caselaw' (ie even the legal system hasn't got a clue what will
> happen)
>
> If your resulting 3D object has artistic or creative elements then it
> is probably 'sculpture' as far as the law is concerned, but that may
> vary by country. That gives you a set of country specific rights
> which include in many countries the rights to control who may
> photograph it unless on permanent public display. I suspect (but
> you'll need to talk to an IP lawyer in your location) that these
> rights will be the ones most relevant to a "copy" that was made 'from
> scratch'. Likewise they govern things like laser scanning and making
> a new version of the sculpture or resin casting copies.
>
> If it is functional (eg a bolt) then patent law would apply, but only
> in some countries and situations.
>
> If it is functional but has some clever design element then it may be
> eligible for design rights (design patent in the USA) but that in most
> countries only covers commercial reuse so you can make your own.
>
> If it's a functional object with an artistic design on it then it may
> depend what is copied. Eg if I copy your screw but remove the logo
> although intuitively its a deeply offensive act to rip my credit off a
> work, in law its actually probably what makes it legal to then copy
> the functional object that had my logo on!
>
> If it has a trademarked element on it then trademark law may apply but
> again usually only for commercial use, but you'd probably remove the
> mark anyway. The obvious exception being printing things like fake
> logos.
>
> There are also other rights, so putting my name on it when you made it
> would not be allowed for example. In some cases removing the creators
> identifier may also be forbidden.
>
> As it's a physical object first sale doctrines are likely to apply -
> so once its in physical form and sold to me then I can re-sell the
> physical object, saw it up, and so on - but probably not make copies.
>
> The OpenSCAD file is probably a computer program. So irrespective of
> the object produced would (if it has enough of a creative element) be
> protected by copyright law. In some broken parts of the world (eg the
> USSA) it may also be tangled in with software and business method
> patents. A computer program that machines screws is likely
> copyrightable even if the screws and the machine are not. The case of
> someone taking the OpenSCAD file and editing it is probably the
> simplest - *if* OpenSCAD is a computer program. It sits in a curious
> space on the edge.
>
> The STL file is produced by compiling the computer program so it is
> arguably object code. However it's also a representation of data
> about the physical object (a database). So I imagine the lawyers
> would end up arguing a lot about what it actually was (and therefore
> which bucket of copyright/patent/etc) it ended up in. An STL of a
> scanned object for example might be a database of facts, or a
> derivative of the scanned object or both. I've not seen any caselaw
> to sort that mess out because it's simultaneously arguably a load of
> conflicting legal classes. One day some big corporations will fight
> over it and a senior court will make a learned decision (or quite
> possibly just blindly guess) as to how the division works.
>
> The STL is turned into g-code (which is probably a computer program
> but may not be creative if the STL isnt)
>
> The derivative question is hard. There is a lot of law on derivative
> works and it is sometimes very counter-intuitive. Beyond the obvious
> ends of the spectrum it really does need a lawyer, and usually they
> will tell you "stick to the obvious ends" or to ask permission to be
> sure.
>
> This btw is one reason things like using CC does matter rather than
> just saying "we don't know" or "we don't think the law covers this".
> Copyright cases are likely to consider any public obvious intent of
> the creator as part of a case. A thing called "estoppel" also bars
> you from going after someone after promising not to. Thus putting
> CC-* on a work you want to be shared actually helps hugely. It means
> the person wanting to use it doesn't have to second guess your intent
> or take a perceived legal risk.
>
> So if copyright does apply then your CC license deals with it, if not
> then it did no harm adding it. And if in doubt ask.
>
> I am *not* a lawyer, but I spend far too much time dealing with them.
> My world btw is even more complicated. I make models of existing
> physical functional objects (Railway locomotives for example) using
> openscad (which is software) to produce a model (which is apparently
> a sculpture). Quite how all the rights and the like work on the
> different bits world is an even bigger barrel of laughs.
>
> Much of this stuff is not actually new. It's been bouncing around
> since before 3D printing was invented because it impacts things like
> 2D fold up paper models just as much. At least some of the corner
> cases (notably masks for silicon chips) got legal bodge fixes
> implemented by governments.
>
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


--
Bugs thrive on poor housekeeping and inadequate hygine. Where one is
tolerated, many are found.                         -- Rick Hoselton
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566



--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

drxenocide
While not a patent attorney, I do work in IP. Most of the information above is correct except for 1 thing. Trademark law is NOT applicable. Trademarks are how you protect the way to brand a product e.g. how you know that two arches mean McDonalds, how you know that a X00 car comes from Mercedes, and a 6X6 car comes from Mazda, or a balck and yellow power tool comes from DeWalt.

An STL file would be protectable under copyright law (automatic protection) or design patent law (if you filed for protection). A parametric/customizable design IS NOT protectable under patent law, but the printed stuff made from it could be, but again, only if you filed for it.

CC, BY, GNU-PL etc. are all ways to circumvent/pervert/nullify copyright law. So if you are trying to assert rights under those things, you are in the realm of copyright. You don't have any rights under patent law because you haven't filed a patent.

If you really want to know how to determine if the design is patentable this link spells out how the professionals figure it out: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html



On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you, MichaelAtOz for the link:




 <http://opus.bath.ac.uk/18661/2/bradshaw.pdf>

Travis, would you mind sharing the link to the part in question?

Thnaks,

TakeItAndRun



2014-03-07 16:26 GMT+01:00 G. Wade Johnson <[hidden email]>:

Alan,

I don't know about anyone else, but I really appreciated this summary.

I only thought I was confused about the legal issues. You have
helpfully confirmed that suspicion.<grin/>

Seriously though, I think your comment about intent helps me the most.
I was struggling with this on some derivatives that I was working on
and this solidifies what was worrying me.

Thanks again,
G. Wade

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:53:30 +0000
Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I don't particularly care either way. There's very little ego or
> > money on the line, so it's mostly an academic enterprise for me.
> > Can anyone fill me in on what constitutes a derivative or
> > adaptation when it comes to 3D models? Is a from-scratch recreation
> > of the model sufficient? The recreation has some slight
> > differences: The overall geometry is almost identical but there are
> > some surface markings on the top that differ.
>
> That is to say the least "complicated" (you need an IP lawyer but
> truth is the best they are likely to be able to tell you is 'we have
> little caselaw' (ie even the legal system hasn't got a clue what will
> happen)
>
> If your resulting 3D object has artistic or creative elements then it
> is probably 'sculpture' as far as the law is concerned, but that may
> vary by country. That gives you a set of country specific rights
> which include in many countries the rights to control who may
> photograph it unless on permanent public display. I suspect (but
> you'll need to talk to an IP lawyer in your location) that these
> rights will be the ones most relevant to a "copy" that was made 'from
> scratch'. Likewise they govern things like laser scanning and making
> a new version of the sculpture or resin casting copies.
>
> If it is functional (eg a bolt) then patent law would apply, but only
> in some countries and situations.
>
> If it is functional but has some clever design element then it may be
> eligible for design rights (design patent in the USA) but that in most
> countries only covers commercial reuse so you can make your own.
>
> If it's a functional object with an artistic design on it then it may
> depend what is copied. Eg if I copy your screw but remove the logo
> although intuitively its a deeply offensive act to rip my credit off a
> work, in law its actually probably what makes it legal to then copy
> the functional object that had my logo on!
>
> If it has a trademarked element on it then trademark law may apply but
> again usually only for commercial use, but you'd probably remove the
> mark anyway. The obvious exception being printing things like fake
> logos.
>
> There are also other rights, so putting my name on it when you made it
> would not be allowed for example. In some cases removing the creators
> identifier may also be forbidden.
>
> As it's a physical object first sale doctrines are likely to apply -
> so once its in physical form and sold to me then I can re-sell the
> physical object, saw it up, and so on - but probably not make copies.
>
> The OpenSCAD file is probably a computer program. So irrespective of
> the object produced would (if it has enough of a creative element) be
> protected by copyright law. In some broken parts of the world (eg the
> USSA) it may also be tangled in with software and business method
> patents. A computer program that machines screws is likely
> copyrightable even if the screws and the machine are not. The case of
> someone taking the OpenSCAD file and editing it is probably the
> simplest - *if* OpenSCAD is a computer program. It sits in a curious
> space on the edge.
>
> The STL file is produced by compiling the computer program so it is
> arguably object code. However it's also a representation of data
> about the physical object (a database). So I imagine the lawyers
> would end up arguing a lot about what it actually was (and therefore
> which bucket of copyright/patent/etc) it ended up in. An STL of a
> scanned object for example might be a database of facts, or a
> derivative of the scanned object or both. I've not seen any caselaw
> to sort that mess out because it's simultaneously arguably a load of
> conflicting legal classes. One day some big corporations will fight
> over it and a senior court will make a learned decision (or quite
> possibly just blindly guess) as to how the division works.
>
> The STL is turned into g-code (which is probably a computer program
> but may not be creative if the STL isnt)
>
> The derivative question is hard. There is a lot of law on derivative
> works and it is sometimes very counter-intuitive. Beyond the obvious
> ends of the spectrum it really does need a lawyer, and usually they
> will tell you "stick to the obvious ends" or to ask permission to be
> sure.
>
> This btw is one reason things like using CC does matter rather than
> just saying "we don't know" or "we don't think the law covers this".
> Copyright cases are likely to consider any public obvious intent of
> the creator as part of a case. A thing called "estoppel" also bars
> you from going after someone after promising not to. Thus putting
> CC-* on a work you want to be shared actually helps hugely. It means
> the person wanting to use it doesn't have to second guess your intent
> or take a perceived legal risk.
>
> So if copyright does apply then your CC license deals with it, if not
> then it did no harm adding it. And if in doubt ask.
>
> I am *not* a lawyer, but I spend far too much time dealing with them.
> My world btw is even more complicated. I make models of existing
> physical functional objects (Railway locomotives for example) using
> openscad (which is software) to produce a model (which is apparently
> a sculpture). Quite how all the rights and the like work on the
> different bits world is an even bigger barrel of laughs.
>
> Much of this stuff is not actually new. It's been bouncing around
> since before 3D printing was invented because it impacts things like
> 2D fold up paper models just as much. At least some of the corner
> cases (notably masks for silicon chips) got legal bodge fixes
> implemented by governments.
>
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


--
Bugs thrive on poor housekeeping and inadequate hygine. Where one is
tolerated, many are found.                         -- Rick Hoselton
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566



--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

Alan Cox
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:18:13 -0500
Ari Diacou <[hidden email]> wrote:

> While not a patent attorney, I do work in IP. Most of the information above
> is correct except for 1 thing. Trademark law is NOT applicable. Trademarks
> are how you protect the way to brand a product e.g. how you know that two
> arches mean McDonalds, how you know that a X00 car comes from Mercedes, and
> a 6X6 car comes from Mazda, or a balck and yellow power tool comes from
> DeWalt.

If I 3D print something that has a McDonalds logo on it and sell the item
then I will get pursued by the mark owner.

> An STL file would be protectable under copyright law (automatic protection)

Not always surely - a scan of an existing physical object may well just be
database of facts ?

Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

drxenocide



On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:18:13 -0500
Ari Diacou <[hidden email]> wrote:

> While not a patent attorney, I do work in IP. Most of the information above
> is correct except for 1 thing. Trademark law is NOT applicable. Trademarks
> are how you protect the way to brand a product e.g. how you know that two
> arches mean McDonalds, how you know that a X00 car comes from Mercedes, and
> a 6X6 car comes from Mazda, or a balck and yellow power tool comes from
> DeWalt.

If I 3D print something that has a McDonalds logo on it and sell the item
then I will get pursued by the mark owner.

True. I was saying that tj couldnt use trademark law to protect his design. 

> An STL file would be protectable under copyright law (automatic protection)

Not always surely - a scan of an existing physical object may well just be
database of facts ?


In the US we have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Your line of reasoning was shut down pretty hard in 2000-2001 with the discussion of Divx and Metallica v. Napster. According to our law that is a copy. Not sure what your law is in the UK, but I'm suspecting that the UK copied whatever stance the US took.
Alan


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

Peter Falke
Bradshaw, S., Bowyer, A. and Haufe, P. (2010) The Intellectual
Property implications of low-cost 3D printing. ScriptEd, 7 (1). pp.
5-31. ISSN 1744-2567

is from 2010, so the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (if it is from 2001)
should  be alredy considered in the paper (if applicable).

Sincerely,

TakeItAndRun



2014-03-07 17:40 GMT+01:00 Ari Diacou <[hidden email]>:



On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:18:13 -0500
Ari Diacou <[hidden email]> wrote:

> While not a patent attorney, I do work in IP. Most of the information above
> is correct except for 1 thing. Trademark law is NOT applicable. Trademarks
> are how you protect the way to brand a product e.g. how you know that two
> arches mean McDonalds, how you know that a X00 car comes from Mercedes, and
> a 6X6 car comes from Mazda, or a balck and yellow power tool comes from
> DeWalt.

If I 3D print something that has a McDonalds logo on it and sell the item
then I will get pursued by the mark owner.

True. I was saying that tj couldnt use trademark law to protect his design. 

> An STL file would be protectable under copyright law (automatic protection)

Not always surely - a scan of an existing physical object may well just be
database of facts ?


In the US we have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Your line of reasoning was shut down pretty hard in 2000-2001 with the discussion of Divx and Metallica v. Napster. According to our law that is a copy. Not sure what your law is in the UK, but I'm suspecting that the UK copied whatever stance the US took.
Alan


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566



--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

Alan Cox
In reply to this post by drxenocide
> > Not always surely - a scan of an existing physical object may well just be
> > database of facts ?
> >
> >
> In the US we have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Your line of
> reasoning was shut down pretty hard in 2000-2001 with the discussion of
> Divx and Metallica v. Napster. According to our law that is a copy. Not
> sure what your law is in the UK, but I'm suspecting that the UK copied
> whatever stance the US took.

Those I believe were for creative works. In the model making world the
scans of physical objects will be functional objects (eg railway
locomotives) which I believe is a bit different to the "this MP3 file is
just a collection of facts about your song" argument.

As its complex to build such a database of measurements its also then
potentially protected in the UK by database rights (which I don't believe
the US was ever dumb enough to introduce)

Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

tjhowse
Peter:

Original: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:69460

Derivative: http://i.imgur.com/TDHQsNV.jpg

It looks like the general answer is "It's complicated." There's no
precedence yet, and there's a lot of subjectivity and
jurisdiction-dependence.

Thanks for the info people.

On 8 March 2014 07:23, Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> > Not always surely - a scan of an existing physical object may well just be
>> > database of facts ?
>> >
>> >
>> In the US we have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Your line of
>> reasoning was shut down pretty hard in 2000-2001 with the discussion of
>> Divx and Metallica v. Napster. According to our law that is a copy. Not
>> sure what your law is in the UK, but I'm suspecting that the UK copied
>> whatever stance the US took.
>
> Those I believe were for creative works. In the model making world the
> scans of physical objects will be functional objects (eg railway
> locomotives) which I believe is a bit different to the "this MP3 file is
> just a collection of facts about your song" argument.
>
> As its complex to build such a database of measurements its also then
> potentially protected in the UK by database rights (which I don't believe
> the US was ever dumb enough to introduce)
>
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

MichaelAtOz
Administrator
I imagine this design is older
http://store.curiousinventor.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/k/n/knob_large_1.jpg

Pretty hard to make something original these days...
Admin - email* me if you need anything,
or if I've done something stupid...
* click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work.
Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.


The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ time is running out!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

tjhowse
Can anyone suggest a more appropriate license to use in situations
like this? Preferably the same license could be applied to both the
STL product of the SCAD code, and the SCAD code itself.

On 9 March 2014 15:36, MichaelAtOz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I imagine this design is older
> http://store.curiousinventor.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/k/n/knob_large_1.jpg
>
> Pretty hard to make something original these days...
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OT-CC-BY-Licence-on-a-SCAD-design-tp7118p7175.html
> Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

drxenocide
Code is potectable by copyright and sortof by utility patent (but making an STL and printing it is most likely unpatentable under Bilski v. Kappos). STL's are protectable by copyright and design patents (and if it's a mark, trademarks). If you want to exclude people from COPYing (literally moving from one place to another, and making multiple runs) then copyright is your thing. If you want to stop someone from reverse engineering your thing, then you need a patent. But you wont get one on the knob under discussion, because of the reason MichealAtOz just gave.

A more practical solution is to post your designs on shapeways, where full copyright protection is in place.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:04 AM, tjhowse <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can anyone suggest a more appropriate license to use in situations
like this? Preferably the same license could be applied to both the
STL product of the SCAD code, and the SCAD code itself.

On 9 March 2014 15:36, MichaelAtOz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I imagine this design is older
> http://store.curiousinventor.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/k/n/knob_large_1.jpg
>
> Pretty hard to make something original these days...
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OT-CC-BY-Licence-on-a-SCAD-design-tp7118p7175.html
> Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

Peter Falke
Hi Travis,

you made an excellent video of your workflow.
Now, someone learned from you and made his own thing.
Take it as a badge of honor.

Your thing is a copy of a knob of an existing airplane.
With the same right you had to make this copy, everybody else has the right to copy yours, I think.

It might be rude to not give attribution, but I dont know the full story, just one picture on i.imgur.

All the best,

TakeItAndRun


2014-03-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Ari Diacou <[hidden email]>:
Code is potectable by copyright and sortof by utility patent (but making an STL and printing it is most likely unpatentable under Bilski v. Kappos). STL's are protectable by copyright and design patents (and if it's a mark, trademarks). If you want to exclude people from COPYing (literally moving from one place to another, and making multiple runs) then copyright is your thing. If you want to stop someone from reverse engineering your thing, then you need a patent. But you wont get one on the knob under discussion, because of the reason MichealAtOz just gave.

A more practical solution is to post your designs on shapeways, where full copyright protection is in place.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:04 AM, tjhowse <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can anyone suggest a more appropriate license to use in situations
like this? Preferably the same license could be applied to both the
STL product of the SCAD code, and the SCAD code itself.

On 9 March 2014 15:36, MichaelAtOz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I imagine this design is older
> http://store.curiousinventor.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/k/n/knob_large_1.jpg
>
> Pretty hard to make something original these days...
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OT-CC-BY-Licence-on-a-SCAD-design-tp7118p7175.html
> Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566



--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: CC-BY Licence on a SCAD design

tjhowse
As I said, I don't particularly care, and I've told the guy I don't
expect attribution (he gave it anyway). I'm more interested from an
academic perspective. I don't like ambiguity in usage rights. I'd like
anyone wishing to use my designs to unambiguously understand their
rights.

On 10 March 2014 22:18, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Travis,
>
> you made an excellent video of your workflow.
> Now, someone learned from you and made his own thing.
> Take it as a badge of honor.
>
> Your thing is a copy of a knob of an existing airplane.
> With the same right you had to make this copy, everybody else has the right
> to copy yours, I think.
>
> It might be rude to not give attribution, but I dont know the full story,
> just one picture on i.imgur.
>
> All the best,
>
> TakeItAndRun
>
>
> 2014-03-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Ari Diacou <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Code is potectable by copyright and sortof by utility patent (but making
>> an STL and printing it is most likely unpatentable under Bilski v. Kappos).
>> STL's are protectable by copyright and design patents (and if it's a mark,
>> trademarks). If you want to exclude people from COPYing (literally moving
>> from one place to another, and making multiple runs) then copyright is your
>> thing. If you want to stop someone from reverse engineering your thing, then
>> you need a patent. But you wont get one on the knob under discussion,
>> because of the reason MichealAtOz just gave.
>>
>> A more practical solution is to post your designs on shapeways, where full
>> copyright protection is in place.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:04 AM, tjhowse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest a more appropriate license to use in situations
>>> like this? Preferably the same license could be applied to both the
>>> STL product of the SCAD code, and the SCAD code itself.
>>>
>>> On 9 March 2014 15:36, MichaelAtOz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > I imagine this design is older
>>> >
>>> > http://store.curiousinventor.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/k/n/knob_large_1.jpg
>>> >
>>> > Pretty hard to make something original these days...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > View this message in context:
>>> > http://forum.openscad.org/OT-CC-BY-Licence-on-a-SCAD-design-tp7118p7175.html
>>> > Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>> > http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
>
>
>
>
> --
> [hidden email]
>
> P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
> Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu
> schreiben.
> Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.
>
> P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
> I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
> Please let me know, if you like to read more.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
12