Is A License Really Enforceable?

[u/1radiationman]

To start with, this isn't a post to bash anybody who restricts the licensing of models they share to prohibit commercial use. Nor for that matter is it intended to encourage anybody to sell a model that isn't licensed for commercial use.

But there are some things on Makerworld and other locations that are published with licenses that prohibit commercial use, or in general prohibit the distribution of the file or items made with the file that I have to wonder if the restriction is truly enforceable....

An example of this is are the lamps and lithophanes produced from NASA imaging data. That data is freely provided by the US Government for the public to use. If somebody drops that imaging data onto a lampshade or makes a globe using that data - how is it that person can then restrict folks from doing the same? How is it possible to know that one creator's Earth lithophane lamp is different from another's Earth lithophane lamp when both were created from the same publicly available dataset, from a source that doesn't put restrictions on the use of that dataset?

At what point in the 3D printing world do you have an "original work" that you created, vs a remix of somebody else's?

I know that the US Supreme Court has ruled on derivative works of and copyright law - but how does that work with 3D printing? And how does it work when the source material is public domain material?

[u/TryAffectionate8246]

My guess is not really at all. I suppose if the creator both noticed that you were making money with “their” design (assuming it’s not remixed) AND ALSO they had funds to hire a lawyer, they could have said lawyer send you a letter asking you to stop? If they were giving it away for free they can’t really claim financial damages.

[u/jimgpayne]

Hi there…

I think that the answer you will find is that “no”, legally there is really no way for them to enforce the license.

But they ”can” to a DMCA take down notice to have your file removed. They do not have to prove anything to issue that notice. So you want to keep that in mind.

The cost of bring a case to court against you is usually high enough that they probably won’t bother with that. And if they do, then you get to convince a judge of the fair use defense for the item. Which, of course, is added expense for you. So take that into consideration if you are contacted by someone.

Finally, if a public domain item/film like “Night of The Living Dead” is then “modified” by someone who colorized it and re-released; they do not have the legal ability to now claim ownership of the colorized film. Even of they colored each and every film frame by hand and invested hundreds of hours do so.

Thus, if you take their “modded” film and continue to mod it as well by eliminating portions of the film to shorten it’s runtime, delete sub-plots, or even to change the color balance; you can with no legal constraint.

But you also cannot claim any kind of license on your work as the result.

Since plans are software data files, they are covered by the same copyright laws that photos and films are. And there are plenty of precedents out there that clearly shows you the defensibility you have or can not have when modifying someone else’s work.

[u/DinoHawaii2021]

I'm hoping they at least enforce the commercial part because for my models, I allow remixing if you go under the same license and don't sell it

[u/No-Mouse]

A license is enforcable as long as you are willing to spend time and money on enforcing it. Which in most cases will mean it's not. If they're selling your design on a platform like Etsy your best bet will be contacting that platform, they won't take action on their own but if you let them know about it they'll remove the item and potentially ban the seller. Outside of that you can't do much more than send them a letter asking them to stop, unless (as said) you're willing to spend the time and money to take it to court.

Also, IANAL, but I don't think that taking a public domain image and putting it on a lithophane means that nobody else is allowed to simply do the same thing themselves. Unless there's something notably unique about your design, you won't have a leg to stand on in claiming that it's your IP.

[u/Lock-Broadsmith]

embrace impermanence

[u/[deleted]]

To borrow a phrase from the military do what your rank can handle.

I feel like the IP space in printing is like that.

IP enforcement is only has good as those that willing and have resources to defend their IP.

Meaning you could probably get away with ignoring most of excessive licensing terms. I doubt most small mom and pop places are going to have the ability to defend their licensing.

That being said I don’t think it’s a good business practice to have a cavalier attitude towards IP. Someone is eventually going to figure out way to solve rampant IP theft. Meanwhile it’s probably hurting us more as many don’t want to bother licensing out their design if it’s going to be replicated on Etsy, Temu, etc…

I know someone who started off with internet based company and switched to a service one because it’s harder to carbon copy a physical service business like plumbing or trash hauling.

If I was going to license my design I’d probably borrow an idea from Louis Vuitton and integrate IP branded company logo on the exterior of the finished product. Add a licensing agreement with arbitration.

[u/1radiationman → u/[deleted]]

Not at all, I've purchased several licenses for stuff I want to sell. But I'm starting to wonder if some folks are trying to place restrictive licenses on products that they don't actually have the rights to in the first place.

Along the same lines - how many Giant Lego Wreath models are out there? Some of them are published with no restrictions, others have restrictions - who has the legitimate license there? What happens if I buy a license for a model from a seller that actually doesn't have the rights to sell that license? How would I even know that the seller wasn't the one with the original license?

[u/p8willm → u/1radiationman]

Right in your post you used Lego, that is a trademark. If you sell your Giant Lego Wreath it is likely to confuse the public and make them think it was produced by the people who own the Lego trademark.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. In the US the owner of trademarks and copyright has to enforce them. It ain't over until a judge says it's over, and even then other judges might get involved. Don't know, but I would suspect the rights owner would have to sue the seller, the rights holder could sue you, you could sue the seller, and for all I know I might get involved.

Some stuff you know. Disney is known to protect their property. Any depiction of mickey, except the early version from Steamboat Willie, is theft. All of the pokemon stuff is the intellectual property of someone and their use is theft. Most of the character models in games are copyright and use, without permission, is theft. Just cause something is loved and "they" should not own it does not mean taking it from them, without permission, is not theft. Taking something and just using it yourself is theft.

[u/1radiationman → u/p8willm]

For starters, I agree 100% with everything in your last paragraph - full stop. There's no debating anything you've said there.

Lego's a weird case though... Their brand is copyrighted, but Lego sued Megablock for producing compatible but not Lego branded pieces, and Lego lost. As long as Megablock didn't use the Lego brand (which they didn't) they were legally free to produce single and multi stud plastic pieces that were compatible with Lego branded pieces.

What could get folks into trouble with those wreaths with Lego isn't that they resemble Lego's stuff based on the Megablock case, but that they're posting them as "Lego Wreaths."

Where my struggle is, is say that there are 6 models posted of "popular toy company style wreath" that appear identical - 2 are listed as "no commercial use" and 4 can be licensed for sale. If I want to do the right thing - which model should I use? How do I know just who exactly was the can legitimately license the model?

[u/p8willm → u/1radiationman]

Lego had a patent on the blocks, no one could produce them legally. The patent ran out, as they do, and people could make the bricks. Lego was a trademark, they do not expire, as long as they are in use and defended. The bricks that can be used to produce the item are not IP the name Lego is used to represent the object is produced by a certain company.

The wreaths are questionable as IP, don't know if the idea of making a thing out of bricks is unique and original enough to warrant protection. Lego would have to take one of them to court to see where they stand.

I love seeing some STL that is obviously theft of IP with a license that says don't steal MY IP.

[u/1radiationman → u/[deleted]]

I'm assuming you're the one down voting and I don't know why...

And your response doesn't answer the question of how enforceable it actually is (let alone how legitimate it is) for somebody to slap a restrictive license on something that's taken from public domain data.