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 
I can’t wait to see what your thoughts are! I love to see fresh perspectives.
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.
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.
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!
I believe what CC licenses attempt to do is to disallow you from legally possessing the files unless you accept terms of the CC license. By taking possession of an STL file you are accepting CC terms, and the terms can impose restrictions that copyright by itself cannot, like prohibiting physical expression of an STL file for profit, while allowing it for personal use, for example. In that way it’s sort of like a EULA which covers activities that are far removed from what can be covered by copyright. Whether CC licenses succeed legally is debated, and even if CC licenses are legally sound in general, there are differing opinions as to what can and cannot be covered as a derivative.
But I think most of this is beside the point. If you are pursuing this as an academic exercise, you will find differing opinions and not much appetite for discussion beyond that because in the past it has not gone anywhere good and left sore spots. If you think Ryan is asking for something that he does not have legal right to claim, you are entitled to your opinion and it is possible you are right (and it could depend on jurisdiction), but discussion here is exceedingly unlikely to come to that conclusion and narrow the protections that are claimed.
If you are looking for the go-ahead for your own concrete use-case, it has probably already been covered or it’s straightforward enough to ask. What Ryan asks is really pretty simple and clear, whether or not the legal mechanisms cover it or not.
Speaking of license restrictions, can we add a clause, not to be used in milling of drug-smuggling submarines? But then on second thought, you know the old adage: if MPCNC milling of drug-smuggling submarines is outlawed, only outlaws will mill drug-smuggling submarines with the MPCNC.
Researching this is time consuming and my experience is in criminal law. Of course I could pay a lawyer to get an answer but this is a hobby of mine. If I am unable to get a satisfactory answer, then I will just not publish any designs.
I was assuming that if people felt that they could copyright a design and protect it with a licence, then they might have some evidence to support that belief. That would shortcut my own research.
Major manufacturers don’t rely on copyright for these things. They rely on patents. Re-engineering of designs and parts happens all the time and I don’t see major corporations going to court about it. Record companies pursue even tiny violations of artistic copyrights. There’s a reason why these things are true.
After a very long wall of text, I still don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish. The vague nature of your posts does not invite for a trustful exchange. This is not a court room. This is a place where ordinary people seek help, share ideas and hang out. You are welcome to be a part of this community, but please try to be more transparent with your intentions. The hazy and confusing style to your writing only leaves the impression that you have hidden aims.
I guess I have my answer. People on this forum believe that Ryan’s designs (and not just logos and trademarks) can be copyrighted because Ryan says that they can. Obviously Ryan can then grant whatever licence he sees fit.
I don’t believe that the design itself can be copyrighted, based on some of the references above and my reading of copyright law.
It’s not what we belive it is what large markets agree too. Regardless of how an individual interprets a law, precedent generaly means more, correct? EBay has removed sellers trying to sell Ryan’s design with the logo removed. There fore there is a precedent that the design is covered by the copyright. I have no evidence of this, other than a first hand accounting that it happened. And as you said, big corporations do things for good reasons.
I am not about to publish or sell generic versions of MPCNC parts because I don’t need the money, I don’t want the hassle and (most important of all) I am just not interested in that kind of thing.
CC is international and accepted by many/most countries. Patents need to be paid for in every country you want protection.
Whether I am fully covered or not, I have laid out a very clear and precise set of rules I would prefer my parts to be used. Like Atom said, you did agree to them (adding some sort of validity to them) and yes they have been tested many times in many countries at many companies. I have not tested all aspects of the CC, yet, because I really have excluded almost all aspects of the CC.
That is my answer and has been stated several times and is extremely clear on the license page.
I need you to ask more specific questions or I am closing this thread, something I have never done before but this sort of vague poking is just negativity that I chose not to allow here. WE humored you long enough about this. Be specific or drop it.
Major manufacturers don’t release STLs and don’t want people recreating them. That, IMO, is the difference.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this and I think it is inflammatory to say.
It is not just MPCNC. Creative Commons is the basis for license restrictions for many things. It is not unreasonable to question its validity but if you are looking for support for the belief, that is where you will find it. It’s not just something Ryan made up here.
There is plenty of discussion elsewhere as to whether Creative Commons licenses are valid and protect what they claim to protect. That would be a good direction for your research.
Well, there goes the “benefit of doubt”…
Let me remove the doubt:
I am trying to understand what protection can be provided - if any - to designs so that I can design a part to add to the LowRider 2 that I am building and protect that design. I am now sure that the only protection that can provided for a “useful article” is one, or more, patents.