What is your opinion?
Interesting article by Pete Prodoehl about an Item ( http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:39844 ) he made which
What is your opinion?
I stated my oponion in a comment of that blog posting.
Here’s what I do:
and how I use Creative Commons licenses:
@Marcus_Wolschon Interesting posts… Here’s a question for you, since my design is pretty darn close to the GoPro Frame design (I basically looked at the photo and then modeled my own version) does that complicate issued because my design might not even be “original” as it were? Is mine just a knock-off of theirs, with perhaps a tweak here or there?
@Pete_Prodoehl that is a good question in general, where does Creativity starts and where does CopyPaste ends. Curious because i think about selling StarCraft inspired Models
I think the issue is that you’ve already made it publicly available, once that’s done you have no control and no recourse on what is done with your item.
Two examples spring to mind:
You give someone a nice expensive Christmas present, and then a few weeks later you see they’ve sold it on facebook. You might not be happy, but once you’ve given the present, then it’s up to the person receiving it what they do with it.
Someone builds a Quad copter incorporating your item, they then sell the quad copter, do they owe you any royalty?
In both cases I think you would agree (you might not be happy), but you have no recourse.
@Tony_Hine_Nifty_Acce To clarify, I’m not really upset about this, and I don’t need any recourse… Really, if anything at all bothers me, it’s that the page says “Design by cadbury204” when, you know, it really isn’t.
I’m mostly interested in seeing what others think about this, because I’m convinced we’ll see more and more of this with 3D objects, and there are differences between physical things and digital things like software, music, photos, and video.
One of the reasons I support the GPL is because it was written in an attempt to deal with this: allow other people to use and extend your design while still recognizing and advertising that you made it. Yesterday’s hackaday had an article about a guy who was building STL files such that they printed his initials inside the 3d print, which I thought was a neat way of integrally signing your work.
drop a message to Shapeways – and directly to the one selling the piece. The attribution is covered by your license and they will respect that. I think the best course of action tends to be friendly, proactive, and see what happens.
This reminds me what happened to the accessory business in Etsy with people being hired to scroll through etsy and then make products for the big brands and stores. This was shocking for individuals just diving into this stuff, but has been pretty much the main practice in fashion for hundreds of years. There is nothing to do about this, and probably there shouldn’t be, so the approach to compensate tended to be, well, having real relationships with customers and continuing to be the source of good ideas. Likewise, I like Pete so I would go to him as the source for his stuff first, so he has an advantage over.
But the difference is that in this case the exact data and text was taken. Really lame!
@Matthew_Griffin But do I need to do anything? Should I do anything? Did “cadbury204” do anything wrong? I’m not sure… but I want to hear what others think about this. #thanks
@John_Chan_Madox mentioned in another thread that maybe cadbury204 loved the design and wanted one, so s/he uploaded it to get one printed for their own use, and then just tossed it up for sale in case anyone else wanted one. (Not everyone lives in the future with their own 3D printer like we do.
@Pete_Prodoehl Actually, you should do this. Politely and with no expectations for much of an outcome. Because I think the social pressure might help, in this case, restore something that both you and this other user are happy with. And Shapeways can help mediate a touch. I would imagine that this user might not know what he/she is doing. I could be wrong. If anything, share back here what shapeways says in answer to your request.
@Pete_Prodoehl “Design by cadbury204” Now yes, that is most definitely wrong, I’m not sure what you can do about it.
I didn’t mean to imply you were upset, although I realise I did imply you were upset! I think I was sort of speaking as if it were myself if you know what I mean.
@Tony_Hine_Nifty_Acce No worries… I’m glad you shared your own feelings, as that is what I was after. I’m slightly conflicted about this issue, but really welcome what others think about it.
@Pete_Prodoehl Mine is a GoPro and a NERF mount combined.
Both are implementations of a standard mount and surpass no threshold of originality (German: Schöpfungshöhe) of their own. Their very shape is dictated by outside influence and could not be any other way. Thus merely their combination and the detail of how I lock the GoPro to always and only look straight ahead is original and can identify a copy.
To be called a copy in the sense of a license there would have to be a part of sufficient complexity copied.
With the GoPro case that could maybe be the case and it’s clamping mechanism. But given that it’s dictated by the GoPro’s shape it maybe not original enough. Not being a jusge nor an expert in such matters I can’t decide.
It would however not matter HOW the copy was created.
It’s difficult to decide how a license on a CAD design relates to the physical part made according to this design. I’ve elaborated on my thoughts regarding this in the linked blog posting a while ago. My view is that to a certain degree a physical object is a copy of the design, manifested in another form. This may or may not hold true in all cases.
Another thing is that a trademarked logo may be copied.
If I had an embossed NERF logo or you had a GoPro logo embedded, that would allow the trademark holder to hold us liable. Because it’s not used to talk about the trademark or trademarked items but used in a way to designate an origin.
Nothing of both designs uses a patent (as far as I know) and the mechanisms are trivial enough to not be patentable anyway.
@Matthew_Griffin I just remembered that I have (had?) a contact at Shapeways from when they sponsored the 3D Printing Camp we put on this summer… Maybe I’ll ping her with some thoughts on this.
@Pete_Prodoehl I think it’s simple: your design is open source CC-BY, incl. monetizing by others, the attribute was given to you in the description, but not by shapeway display “design by cadbury204”, so you may approach Shapeways (with CC: cadbury204) to make sure, the attribution is done correctly, e.g. someone can upload a design due open source license but not having designed it themselves, it should say “uploaded by cadbury204” correctly.
If you additionally feel betrayed, someone may make money from your design(s), consider to add NC - your own sentiment counts.
But there is another possibility - you could perhaps choose NC, but hint that you are willing to license for commercial applications, e.g. x% of the profits, or one time fee, and for idealists donate to OSHWA.org or EFF.org (I have thought to kind of institutionalize this, but haven’t arrived to something simple).
@Rene_K_Mueller I don’t feel betrayed, and if I do contact Shapeways it’ll be more of a “what do you think about this?” than a “hey, this is not good!” message…
I really am 100% fine with someone taking something I’ve licensed openly and doing what they want with it. Again, like freedom of speech, you have to support it for everyone, not just those you like.
I’ve used public domain artwork from OpenClipArt.org and I may even sell some of them in the future. I’m thankful that others share openly, I and will continue to do the same.
@Pete_Prodoehl I really think the value in contacting Shapeways and the store owner is to make sure to keep conversations about CC open and clear. You might be teaching the person who posted your work something useful to him/her. Shapeways might discover that this store has a lot of things taken from people that will create bad feeling in their community, and might intercede. The fact that you aren’t worried one way or another is an advantage to trying to have a good conversation with these folks.
Sounds good @Matthew_Griffin , I’ll follow up on it.