Oh Winbo:-( They use the work of so many designers and fail to attribute them. I would say that slapping their company name on it and posting it on the web is most definitely commercial use. They claim it isn’t:-)
I hope that Winbo owe you a lot of money for their flagrant, unsanctioned, commercial use of your IP.
And I hope they end up paying you too.
I reckon they do this sort of thing just because they think they can get away with it.
It’s a derivation of my work, which the license does permit. However, the license also states attribution and non-commercial use of the material. To be honest, had they asked in advance and credited me, then I wouldn’t have a problem(except for the branding). I created the Tudor Rose Box for people to enjoy, rather than for me to make money out of (of course, had they offered to give me something them I wouldn’t say no:-)).
What annoys me with Winbo is they constantly post prints of other people’s work and never, ever credit them.
Yeah, I’d consider marketing to be commercial use. I think any denial of that is ludicrous. That company is an aggravating spammer too.
You could release your works under a permissive license and stop wasting time worrying about what others do.
I don’t consider protecting my work a waste of time. People are free to use my work if they operate within the license and often if they want to use it commercially, if we agree something in advance. I don’t create my work so other people can profit from it for free or take credit for creating a design that isn’t theirs(be that explicit or inferred).
I don’t believe I am the exception either. Licensing and observation of those licenses, is very important to many, from lone artists (like me) right up to big corporations. The end result, if companies like Winbo are not called out on their behaviour, is fewer and fewer designers will release their work for general use and enjoyment and I would hate to see that happen.
Thanks for your feedback:-)
Do you make money selling these STL’s?
No - I don’t - why do you ask?
You just seem so fervent about this, I was curious to see if protecting your work was about money and thus your livelihood.
@Matthew_Satterlee its Louises intellectual property and I think she chose a perfectly reasonable license that allows us all to benefit without her being at risk of having someone exploit her idea to make money. As it stands Winbo blatently breached that license and instead of apologising when she politely pointed it out they denied it. She’s well within her rights to ask for that print to be destroyed, I think shes being more than reasonable about the whole thing.
Apart from all that, if you use or derive from someone else’s work crediting them is basic courtesy whether the license asks for it or not.
It’s a point of principle. I don’t see why artists and designers should be discouraged from sharing their work because some people don’t play nicely. The 3D printing world is a great forum for feedback and idea sharing - it’s just a few bad apples that spoil it. I shared this example because it was ludicrously blatant.
The chances are that Winbo won’t do anything about this and given their place of origin, there won’t be anything else I can do about it. So, perhaps you are right and I am wasting my time. However. the very least I can do is expose them - after all, would you really want to do business with a company which behaves like this?
A friend spotted their country of origin as well. I think perhaps this is a cultural thing and they are having to learn ethics the hard way, hopefully things will get better over time.
To be fair, they’ve done a little bit more than just put the name on top. They’ve removed the hinge, merged the box body, lid and panels into a single object, turned it upside down and put a sliding lid on the top. It is no longer a secret lock box but it uses all of my sculpture and it is my work which makes it something other than just a simple easy to design box.
If they had credited me and not branded the box I would have had no real need to complain, beyond commercial usage, which in such cases I generally grant retrospectively (as I often view attribution as “payment” enough). Them denying it, just irks me:-)
They ruined it IMHO…
It think it’s poor form for them to copy it, particuarly not attributing the creator. That said, what they are doing may very well be legal under US copyright law regardless of it is considered a commercial use. Were it poetry, a picture, a song, or a statue of Darth Vader it would be different. If you could make a legal argument that it was a piece of art and not a functional product/part that would go a long way toward a copyright infringement. However, because it’s a functional item and they have modified the piece it’s likely they are not in violation of US copyright law. In fact it’s probably almost guaranteed to not be a violation of US copyright law. The CC (or other open license) NC aspect has no weight under current law as it applies to making functional goods from source files. It’s a legal fact, that’s just how it is.
What this shows more than anything is that, local jurisdictions aside, licensing files does not automatically transfer any protection. As a communiyt we need to better educate people as to the aspects of licesning and how that translates of manufactured good. There are many that don’t fully understand and/or appreciate the implications of of copyright and how that transfers to manufactured goods. In most cases, it doesn’t. Simply applying an NC licence on a file for what could be considered a functional good offers no protection and in fact has no validity under current law. The only legal recouse is to not put the files up in the first place. It’s unfortunate for many creators/devs but that is how the law works.
My original model was a sculpted box which I would define as art. Yes, it can be used a s a box but it’s primary function is decorative. Many art galleries feature item which could notionally have some functional use but would still be described as art - it’s pretty murky. As it is, it wasn’t the functional aspect of my work that they took, it was the sculpture. Under US Law I guess it boils down to “fair use” and if it is covered by that. Either way, the offender isn’t from the USA, so I am not sure how relevant all this is anyway.
I agree education is key, but I would also say the CC needs revision to take into account technology like 3D printing. I can’t comment further as I don’t have legal training.
Either way, all companies like Winbo will achieve is to discourage people from sharing files and work. I am still going to make a fuss if someone use my work without attribution:-)
@Louise_Driggers Depending on how much of your art they used and in what context would determine fair use. The art is severable from the box and it could very well be they have infringed, depending on what they changed and how they used it. You absolutely should “make a fuss”.
I think the best thing to do is make it known they’ve copied your work and won’t give you credit. Sharing is a big part of this culture and people that contribute should at least be acknowledged. I see this as more of a social contract rather than anything legal and a big part of the community is doing what may be considered the right thing regardless if any law requries it. I think in this case it’s absolutely the right thing for them to do to acknowledge your contribution. The context is larger than any legal parameters but many still think there is some sort of legal protection. In this case I see social reputation outweighing any sort of legal right.
Changing CC won’t help. It’s an issue based in law that would require the law to be changed and some of it is constitutionally protected. Here is a good piece detailing some of the challenges. While doing what they did could make others think twice about sharing, those that try to impart a restrictive license on rights that aren’t granted also chill participation. It’s murkey indeed.
@dstevens_lv Thanks - I’ll have a read:-) And yes, social media is such a huge part of business now and I find using that is most effective. I like to be seen to challenge lack of attribution even if it doesn’t work (in most cases, it does:-))
BTW, a friend of mine with a legal mind and training, essentially agrees with what you’ve said.
Public shaming it is:-)
Such a pity we have to do this.
Hi Louise, sorry to hear what happen. I’m always surprise how businesses don’t consider licensing and abuse of somebody else work. It would be very easy to contact you to ask permission or to get a personal agreement.
CC exist and are available to designers when they upload their models, I don’t think people have problems with a designer choice but with the whole concept of licensing and understanding that every model under CC, commercial or not, is under an attribution license. Doing it for community feelings and respect is a +.
That design is definitely an art piece, without the decorations would be a plain box with no distinctive feature. So it’s protected by copyrights
You were really kind to share her elaborate piece with a so permissive license that allow derivatives, and were definitely taken advantage of. Thanks for sharing your story with all of us, hopefully it will help teaching to others.