Reengineering: licence, copyright, patent

If you feel this thread has not helped feel free to reach out to me privately.

3 Likes

If you’re not enjoying this, Jack, then you really should talk to Ryan privately. I would like to point some things out though:

  1. The ass saver is licensed CC-BY. Even if you don’t think the CC license has legal power over that STL, you should also release any remixes with attribution to the original ass savior.
  2. The CC-SA-NC is asking the same thing. The intention is that if you remix the parts, please release them with the same license.

I don’t think we’re really that far off. Although maybe we disagree on the motivation to keep the license (moral vs. legal reasons). And I don’t really see the point in debating it.

I also come to this from a software perspective and I have applied lessons I learned from SWE to these designs. If you produce another STL with the same coordinates from the initial STL, then you’ve made a copy of that text. I don’t really see how that is different than copying source code. I’m going to provide my perspective here. And it would be easy to pick apart different things in it. This is just one guy’s opinion.

There is another argument about “functionality” vs. “art”, but I don’t think you’re engaging in that, or did I miss something? If you write a recipe for making bread. You can’t keep anyone else from making bread, and you can’t copyright the ingredients for making bread. Bread is a functional thing, and a part of “nature”. So the fact that combining 1000g of flour with 700g of water is not something you can protect. But the text of a recipe can be copyrighted. You can’t copy and paste a recipe from a blog and call it your own. But you can make a recipe with the same ingredients.

You also can’t open a harry potter book and start typing the same words, and then claim it isn’t a copy. There is a line somewhere. If the ass-saver was CC-SA-NC, and you opened that STL in fusion, added a fin to make it faster and then published it as your own work without the CC-SA-NC… In my amateur legal opinion and in my moral opinion, you’ve done something wrong. To me, that’s because the original “text” of the STL is still there. If you make a different bike fender, then you’ve made something that has the same functionality as the ass-saver, but that doesn’t mean you broke the copyright.

Going back to the touchy subject, if you want to make a CNC machine. Or a CNC machine that uses 3 bearings and uses EMT conduit, there’s nothing that should stop you. But you can’t use the MPCNC parts to start it unless you keep the same license.

The thing that bums me out the most from these discussions is that people think that anyone is trying to stop innovation, or trying to stop people from making or sharing edits. I have never seen Ryan or any of the core community say that. It is a bummer that people think that is what is happening. We were just trying to keep Tom from republishing the MPCNC as some OPCNC with a CC0 license (which he threatened to do).

Ebay sellers have no reason to make decent quality parts, and they don’t have overhead of providing new designs or paying for the forums. If they are in a country where Ryan legally has to pay import taxes, then they have a big advantage. They get shut down because Ebay respects Ryan’s copyright and trademark and he gets them taken down each time they pop up. They intentionally make it unclear that they are not the official V1Engineering shop, and customers get the parts, then are directed here for help, and then it becomes clear that the parts are junk (or old). This isn’t theoretical, it happens every few months. This is the part that is very touchy.

1 Like

I started from the position that parts could be copyrighted and therefore licensed.

When I investigated I found no evidence - but plenty of opinions - supporting that view. I did find lots of evidence to support the view that the parts can’t be copyrighted, and that ideas can be patented.

I assumed, wrongly it appears, that this community, who support the idea that parts can be copyrighted and licensed, would be able to provide references and evidence to back up those ideas.

As I wrote above, I think Thomas was wrong: he accepted the idea that parts could be licensed but then he published a changed part with an incompatible licence. I suspect that he gave up on the MPCNC because he couldn’t get it to work.

1 Like

I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know where to even look for evidence like that. It hasn’t really been tested here. I’m not sure what would happen if it really was. I have the impression from reading articles like the ones you posted, that this is a legal gray area and it really is a problem with the CC licenses and sharing mechanical designs in general.

But what about the creative design elements of an otherwise utilitarian product, such as a statuette forming the base of a decorative lamp? The Act does provide protection for, among other types of work, “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” And one might appreciate the appearance of the lamp base in the same way one appreciates a non-functional sculpture. Does copyright protection extend to the lamp as a sculptural work? The answer is, “probably, to a degree,” but the reasoning is complicated and the scope of protection is limited. Further, copyright protection simply cannot extend to the creative design of many useful articles because the design is so intertwined with the functionality of the thing that is considered “inseparable” from its function.

I think two people will read that and come to completely different conclusions. Add to that the fact that most judges and juries are not software engineers and you can easily imagine spending millions to end up with a crapshoot for a decision.

Patents are used for stuff like this when it is Dell trying to protect objects. But those are pretty worthless unless you are willing to spend the money to defend them. They are also not cheap and pretty much out of reach of a one man shop or a hobby project.

The trademark is a quick shortcut. If it has your logo on it, it is pretty easy to protect.

Copyright is just not as solid, but also not useless. Morally, I think Ryan is on pretty solid ground. Practically, it doesn’t matter much what the legal decision would be (because getting to that decision is too expensive) and theoretically, I think there is a pretty strong argument that it is art and can be copyrighted. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

A patent, design or utility, was not pursued by me simply to keep things cheap. I if I paid for either or both I could have gotten them both, several even. This is not my first job I have a working knowledge of patents. I made a conscious choice to release my designs CC as an attempt to keep the design as free as possible yet retain just enough control to let anyone use or make one themselves for free. On top of that I also chose to make any ideas significantly based off my work also stayed free to use or make.

If you think the patent system is perfect or near perfect we will not come to many agreements about licensing. I do believe patents are necessary for some things but the system is easily abused with money. Companies can and due sue patent holders out of existence just to take the tech for less than the patent holder wanted or because they would not sell.

I am desperately seeking alternatives. CC was the defacto for the first 5 years of my business, nearly all reprap/maker companies that did not hold patents felt the same. The companies that do hold patents might be shunned by the community but continue to prosper in the open market because of them.

1 Like

It is my firm belief that you can take, recreate, modify or otherwise use anything that is publicly available (including .stl, source code art or anything else) if the result of you tinkering is never shared or seen beyond your basement. So if you want to recreate Ryan’s exact designe in painstaking detail go for it, just don’t share it and no one will know or care.
If you do want to share it, the legal definitions seem irrelevant for reasonable and well intentioned members of society(as I belive you are). The reasonable, moral, and just thing to do is simply follow the original creators wishes to the best of your ability. If you think you might step on their toes ask the person that owns/created the work if it is ok. If that person asks you to stop what your doing than stop. I firmly belive legality exist only to keep those who are unreasonable in line. I know I don’t have sources for this argument so take it as you will and it is strictly my personal opinion.

I understand what your saying here but keep in mind what and who you are asking. It’s like walking into a police station and asking under what constitutes stealing. It just doesn’t go over well but none of those officers mean to offend or accuse, there reactions are simply colored by their past experiences. If you have a specific modification in mind bring that idea to us and I bet most will help you with it.

Of you have a specific legal question, mu boss is a licensed Professional Engineer and is only a couple of semesters away from a law degree. I could ask him a specific question and I’m sure he would be happy to answer. But so far I have only seen vague inquiries, but maybe I missed somthing (I do have two small children that keep jumping on my lap distracting me as I read this).

Edit: for an example of how reasonable this group is look here: Idea for pen plotter inspired by and using v1 elements
Not an ill word of copying is spoken despite the original poster’s written intent to copy v1 design XD.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. I belive the core of values of this group are explore, learn, and have fun. If what you are doing aligns with those core values than you should be fine :slight_smile:

2 Likes

No offense, but these threads are always soooo boring…

Why people are focusing so much on technicalities like these? Just build stuff, keep some common sense and everything will be fine :wink:

6 Likes

Hear, hear!

1 Like

Wait, whut? Must. Gather. Torches… Pitchforks… :riot_face: :villager: :storming_the_castle:

Man, the emojis are weaksauce around here… sigh :coffee: :clown_face:

2 Likes

My desire is to modify a part for my own purposes, as I stated in my original post. I want to do what is lawful but I also do not want to be restricted by artificial restraints.

This is more vague than the licensing. If you are precise with what you will be doing as a modification, and exactly what your purposes are we can really give you a simple yes or no answer.

Does this mean, “remove the logo so I can sell them” or does this mean “add a hole for wires on the build in my garage”?

2 Likes

When I get a moment, I am going to do a fresh post that details what part I am trying to build and why I ran into problems.

1 Like

If you want to use Ryan’s intellectual property under different terms than everyone else, then just see if he will negotiate a different license where he feels fairly compensated for the rights you want to purchase and the effort it will take to do a legal one-off.

For what it’s worth, I think Ryan should only support people who print his own branded parts, ideally to the correct specifications (PLA, 70% infil, or whatever the specs are). That way he can has legal protection through branding.

Of course, he might also decide that he should only support people who have paid him money (say by buying something from an authorised shop).

But this is not my business and I can only guess at the business model.

That was one of my points, don’t worry about what is “lawful” as the law is vague. Do what is moral and you shouldn’t run into problems. Always remember to explore, learn and have fun. while your posts thus far have been nondescript, I get the feeling that your intent is to try to do just that that :slight_smile:

I can’t wait to see what your thoughts are! I love to see fresh perspectives.

1 Like

From my experience in court, laws can be vague but they can also be precise. Copyright has been tested so many times in court, including the supreme courts, that I expect you’ll find that it is extremely precisely defined - that is how common law works.

1 Like

If it was precisely defined then you shouldn’t need to ask, right? Not trying to be difficult, just confused. It seems like you have done a lot of research and have more law experience than most people here. So I feel like if there was a clear definition you would have found it and thus there would be no reason for this thread. The fact that you felt the need to ask would indicate that either you didn’t find an clear answer OR the answer you found is not what you wanted. Either way laws are only useful when enforced and most people would rather find a non-legal resolution to a dispute (at least in my experience). So again it doesn’t matter how well defined or vague the law is, if both parties are reasonable then the law doesn’t need to be involved and is there fore irrelevant.

I am pretty confused why this is so difficult. I get asked for special permission at least once a month. Schools, researchers, private companies, internet people. It is simple. Hey I want to do ******* are you okay with that?

This round about legal questions is raising a lot of red flags with me now. If you are trying to keep something private send an NDA along with your specifics privately, if it is not private just ask. The legal questions are nothing but a hassle here.

1 Like

Okay. Well here it goes…
Ryan, may I use the lowrider as a plotter/cutter to manufacture and sell life size portrait wall stickers of anime tentacle porn? I have a hunch that q3 is going to big and I want to get in on the ground floor!

1 Like

Yup, not the worst thing it has been used for this month.

1 Like