Welcome to the SeeMeCNC Community

There is a disturbance in the force...

http://michaelweinberg.org/post/1396758 ... -continued

Just 3D Print is pulling items off of thingiverse.com and selling a printed item without stating it is designed by someone else, for profit.

The link above is to Michael Weinberg's blog, he has contacted both individuals and is stating the issue on his blog.

The creator of the sad face loubie has her comments covering her steps on removing this from ebay.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1350837/#comments

I'm not saying this is "right" but it is a very gray area. For instance, a lot of companies sell Mini Kossel and other printed parts to make printers and I don't recall seeing [very many of] them giving attribution to the author. Also, what if you download a model and have a service shop print a copy, should you provide the service shop with the attribution to the author? Who's profiting in that case? Clearly the service shop is making a profit but since they are selling the "service" and not the item itself, is that in compliance?

This should keep the lawyers busy. And it's exactly why I don't post my fly reel files on open services. I provide them for free for the asking and with acceptance of a few simple conditions to "prevent" exactly this from happening.

This is getting more interesting! Just 3D Print (http://www.just3dprint.com/index.html) isn't just a fly by night eBay shop, it looks to have completely legit foundation and have some impressive honors. Perhaps they are poking at the system to make a point? The ridiculous prices on some of the items they post seem more like bait to me.

Yeah, it's a big gray area with a lot of opinions on both sides of the issue. I don't think that there's any confusion around selling a piece that's specifically licensed as non-commercial, though. That's very clear, and a much more damning and intentional offence than the general lack of attribution in the marketplace. Some of that lack of attribution I can almost write off as ignorance or naivety, but selling a non commercial piece is pretty black and white.

I know that Dizingoff left Thingiverse over his non-commercial files being on display at a Stratasys trade show booth. That's a little different than selling printed parts, but I don't think he's completely out of line either.

Thingiverse could have a claim against the ebay seller for using the images generated by their website. Pinshape and the other sites that sync with Thingiverse can't use the automatically generated images from the site for that very reason... I don't know what damages they could claim or if they're even interested in that kind of a suit anyway. I'm sure that their PR guy would advise them to stay clear of 'voluntary' lawsuits at this point

In my mind, it really comes down to respecting the creator's wishes with the license agreement, especially with the commercial/non-commercial differentiation. It's all about consideration and being a good citizen. On the other side of the coin, I also know that people don't play by the rules, and if there's something that I really want to protect I'll keep it private.

I hope that this thread remains a discussion between civil people. It's gotten pretty heated in a few other places. Rostock users are better than that, right?

Yes we are!

It's very interesting to me that Just 3D Print is not a fly by night operation. They are incorporated, mostly from the Warton school and have a reasonably high powered/high profile (at least in Philly) board. Of course, the whole thing could be a facade but they do appear to have been around for a few years.

Can I change my user ID to something different than 3D-Print!?

LOL!

I'm an admin, I think I can do that. What would you like?

mhackney wrote:LOL!

I'm an admin, I think I can do that. What would you like?

Hummmm. Will think about it.

Maybe pull a Prince! "*******, formerly know as 3D-Print"

When I clicked on the CC license from this item on THingiverse it stated:

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

so.. Can someone post on ebay or amazon their willingness to print out this part and charge $15 a pop for $1.25 of plastic?

techstorage wrote:When I clicked on the CC license from this item on THingiverse it stated:

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

so.. Can someone post on ebay or amazon their willingness to print out this part and charge $15 a pop for $1.25 of plastic?

If it's a license without a specific non-commercial clause, yes.
I still like to reach out to the designer and check first, although I'm sure I'm the minority on that.

The company (or a claimed representative) posted an interesting and thought provoking response to the comment thread on thingiverse: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1350837/#comments - search for JPI

Not that I agree with him/her but the points are valid. I do think it would be common courtesy to give attribution to the designer.

That specific item is Creative Commons, Attribution. It lacks the Non-commercial, and No-Derivatives clauses that some models (among other things) have. Other models they have copied are very much NOT under that license. (I feel a SA clause should be the default. If people wish to make CC stuff into other stuff, then they should contact the original creator for permission to get a different license (but that's neither here nor there))

Personally, I'm tempted to contact their advisers at their college, and tell them that they are violating licenses wholesale, while responding with half-baked legal theories and a general bad attitude (Considering that one of their advisers is director of character development at Valley Forge Military Academy & College, I think he would have words for them about their lack of character, and general bad spirits). It may be a rather petty thing, essentially telling their parents on them, but I believe that with the displayed general douchenozzelry (I apologize if the colorful language offends anyone), that short of a lawsuit, it would be one of the few ways to have any impact on them.

If they had complied with the terms of the licenses (and as Ebay allows few offsite links according to them, it may have been difficult to do more than just name the artist (Which should be enough, really), then while their prices are extortionate, they would be legally as clear as it is possible to be. They could even have contacted the people with NC licenses, and asked for a separate license, for example, one which restricts the commercial rights to only those explicitly authorized (rather than everyone), which may be equipped with a no-derivatives clause, to prevent them from changing it just slightly and attempting to cut out the creator.

Thanks for letting us know about yet another reason to avoid both Ebay (for not having banned these idiots yet), and Thingiverse (High profile enough to have things stolen). That being said, it mostly speaks to the character, or lack thereof, of these four individuals.

I've never understood CC-NC. The justification usually seems to sound like, "I don't want people making a profit off my work," but with a truly open license there would be no profit to be made off the work. What little profit would exist would be solely in obtaining and maintaining the means to offer 3D printing services. With the restrictive license, they not only make more profit possible (from their actual work), but distribute that profit directly to people who are unethical enough to knowingly violate license terms, with only the force of law to regulate the system.

I did read one of their responses stating ebay will not allow posting links. I saw someone create just3dprinted login and post the same item with crediting where the file came from and who created it. They go on to bash just3dprint for not following the practice and list the part for $.99

People need to kill their babies. Woah woah, let me explain. I'm stealing a screenwriting/storytelling term. People have obsessions with the things they create -- even if they suck. A screenwriter does better when they kill their babies -- remove their ideas that aren't good.

In this context, I'd say "let your babies free." Most of these models are decent at best. Nothing that is significantly worth the trouble of haggling over licensing deals, etc. The world would be a better place if more people gave away their ideas. The better the ideas the, better.

Why should you own that idea anyway? Where did you get the idea? We live in a world full of inspiration -- there truly is not a unique thought any longer. Everything is a derivative of something else -- whether tangible or metaphorical.

I think there should be no such thing as a "Non-commercial" CC license. That goes completely against the point of having the CC licence to begin with. What good is releasing an idea, if people can only use it for pointless endeavors? Stop being so greedy, everyone.

Also, I doubt just-3d-print guy is making any significant amount of money on this... I'd be honored if he were selling a model of mine that I had released freely.

bot wrote:...
Also, I doubt just-3d-print guy is making any significant amount of money on this... I'd be honored if he were selling a model of mine that I had released freely.

They may have... Just3dprint has listed and sold hundreds so far.
edit:
I just checked, it looks like bot doesn't have any items on thingiverse to take, yet.

Meh, small potatoes. No different than pulling models off Thingiverse and sending it to community printing services like 3DHubs.

Unfortunately Ryan Simms hasn't put a lot of thought or effort by restricting his personnel information. A quick whois and a few name searching in newtown provides a wealth of personal identifying information. Including a cell phone that undoubtedly will be called and texted nonstop by the angry Thingiverse mob.

techstorage wrote:

bot wrote:...
Also, I doubt just-3d-print guy is making any significant amount of money on this... I'd be honored if he were selling a model of mine that I had released freely.

They may have... Just3dprint has listed and sold hundreds so far.
edit:
I just checked, it looks like bot doesn't have any items on thingiverse to take, yet.

He hasn't sold hundreds of 3d printed items. Here is the sold listing with 3D as a description; 23 items since last November.


http://www.ebay.com/sch/just3dprint/m.h ... 6732.m1684

And let's remember: anyone could download these models for free, and print them with a printer that a company profited from the user buying. Do printer companies owe royalties to thingiverse users too?

He is selling the print. The time it takes him to print the object with the materials and machinery he has worked hard to make/spend money on. There is a legal argument to be made here that these are all derivative works. The original piece is a digital file. Just3dprint is using those digital blueprints as a guide to make a physical representation of such. I think because the digital files are being transformed into a new medium, that these are perfectly legit.

And no, I don't think I have any models on thingiverse. I've shared models in other places, however. I don't see how this changes anything.

In a practical sense: once you post it, you lose control of it.

Not just print files. I spent some years in the photography game and it's worse there. People plaster their images with watermarks and copyright notices and all sorts of things like it's going to be that image that sells for a million bucks, then post it on Facebook. And another, and another, and a hundred other very average images. Then they get a good one and whine when someone uses it. Never mind that their own website is covered in images filched from other artists.

Source code, obviously, is another big item where this can be problematic. People post up these extraordinarily complicated licenses in the sure knowledge it will give their published code some invincible armour against something something, never mind the fact they've used open source compilers and libraries to produce it.

Once you post it, you lose control of it.

Of course, the legal line is different but all that effort you went to means only that you now have an avenue to pursue those pesky pirates in court. If you can afford to roll those dice. Especially for those of us who do this in our spare time, who has the time and resources to chase someone in another country because they took something we made publicly available and made a buck at it?

Once you post it, you lose control of it.

Anyone who releases source code or design files to the internet is effectively saying "Here you are, kids. Go nuts". I don't care what legalese rubbish you attach to it or wrap around it: you publish it, it's public, nothing is stopping people from downloading, using, printing, selling, whatever.

Once you post it, you lose control of it.

If I want to keep an idea for my own commercial development, or I want control of it somehow, I won't publish it. Or I'll publish a small version of the photo. Or I'll publish a closed source version of the code. Or a photo of a model on the computer screen, or of the thing itself.

Once you post it, you lose control of it.

Anything I put on the internet I bear this in mind. If I post up source or designs then I fully expect (hell, I HOPE) someone will have a go at making something of it. Either for themselves or as a commercial venture. Because I lack the resources or inclination to try and peddle it myself. If someone else can make a buck at it, good on them: go to it. I don't understand the resentment people have for others making a profit out of something when the original designer couldn't. Or the need to say "It's mine, give me a slice of the pie". Because if someone else hadn't put the work in around your design, there'd be no pie anyway. And it doesn't preclude other people from doing it or using it for free, either.

Once you post it, you lose control of it.

KAS wrote:Meh, small potatoes. No different than pulling models off Thingiverse and sending it to community printing services like 3DHubs.

3dhubs is explicitly offering a 3D printing service. By expressly offering specific models, the eBay seller has changed the transaction to the realm of offering a product...A made-to-order product, but a product nevertheless, and one to which they technically do not have rights.

I could see this going either way. It ultimately comes down to whether a 3D printed manifestation of a 3D model that was created for the purpose of 3D printing it is an alteration. Ultimately, I don't see how producing an item in the manner the creator intended is an alteration, so I would have to conclude that this is a violation. A certain part of me, however, would want the judge(s) to strike down CC-NC as unenforceable due to being counterproductive for its intended use and an undue burden on the court system.

It's not true that they don't have the rights. It is unlikely that anyone holds trademarks on the characters being printed, though some do. It is unlikely that anyone holds design or other types of patents on the things being printed. The digital file is what would be protected by the licence, not the shape of any resulting form. Copyright does not extend to the form, but the specific manifestation of the form.

I disagree somewhat bot. A movie is just as copyrighted whether burned to a disk, streamed, or downloaded. A book is still a book, be it an E-book or a paperback. It is not legal to print out an E-book and offer it for sale. (although generally, anyone willing to do that does it in limited quantities, and so doesn't get hit with much in the way of legal trouble). I feel that an E-book is actually almost perfect as an analogy, at least for artistic pieces (Items which are strictly functional get patent, rather than copyright, protection).

However, even if the license was only on the digital copy, it's still a scummy thing to not attribute the design, and it's done in bad faith regarding the intent of the license. Not that that's at all legally important, but I cannot defend the attitude or conduct of the individuals, even if I thought their business was legal. And one can't argue that the files aren't being used commercially, which is prohibited. They very much are, even if that isn't what's being sold directly. It's the commercial use, not just selling it. Even if, as they claim, they are modifying STLs, that's like saying that it's fine for me to sell CD's with my I-tunes music, if I go ahead and move the pitch up half an octave. They are directly manipulating the copyrighted content for commercial gain, while not properly attributing designers or inspiration, and then directly lying about why they are violating the license, and generally being inflammatory about it.

Most of the things I post I too would be happy to see people selling. I don't care about making money off it. I generally argue against copyright maximalism. But here, we have a wonderful confluence of people who are working off of largely indefensible legal theories, who are exploiting the good will and generosity of the creators, in direct violation of the terms of the license they agreed to (for the NC only, if we agree that the copyright only applies to file), while being asses to the people they are taking advantage of. I cannot agree that their behavior is moral, ethical, or proper, even if it were legal, which, as I shall for the sake of this discussion, will concede that for those files not carrying an NC tag, it is.

I am not a lawyer, but my line of work does touch on intellectual property a lot more than I'd like it to.

In my experience, anything that doesn't enjoy patent or trademark protection can be reverse-engineered, but as soon as those doing the reverse engineering are provided access to design drawings (or, say, an original STL), the use of those data and any derivative data is subject to the licensing agreement under which the data were provided.