What you need to know about Copyright, Patents, Trademarks and Open Source!


Picture this: Because you’ve got nothing
better to do, you take a stroll around the interweb and you see this awesome design. You want to have it, too, so you get to work
on reproducing it with your 3D printer or, for that matter, pretty much any other tool
you can use to create stuff. Even the humble ctrl+C, ctrl+V applies here. But that’s where you run into it. Copyright. Patents. Trademark rights. Maybe you even though your material was open
source. Well, let me explain. [Intro]
So today i want to touch on those four topics: Copyrights for intellectual properties, Trademarks,
Patents for inventions and, while we’re at it, how open-source works within that ecosystem. This isn’t going to be legal advice, and
while a fair bit of what I’m about to show you is based on the US and European situation
and should be similar in other parts of the world, there are still going to be differences
from one country to the next. So let’s get into it! First of all, these four topics of copyright,
trademarks, patents and open-source are all pretty much separate issues and with the exception
of the interplay of copyright and open source, none of these are inherently connected. Let’s start with copyright: And a lot of
it is in the name already. It’s the exclusive right to copy an original
work. That’s it. Well, not quite. Copyright applies to creative work in the
widest sense, such as books and articles, pictures, videos, music, sculptures etc. And software, which is considered a literary
work in the US. The scope of copyright is important to know,
because purely functional designs do typically not fall within the scope of copyright and
can only really be protected by a patent, just like ideas and processes, and mere discoveries
and unoriginal work don’t get any acknowledgement as far as copyright goes, at all. So while, for example, I can claim copyright
for my videos, the text and photos published alongside them, I can not claim a copyright
for most of my 3D designs because they don’t fall under the definition of creative work,
as they are mostly functional, but also run into another detail of copyright law: The
threshold of originality. Essentially stating that, even when your work
is of an artistic nature, it needs to pass a certain threshold of complexity or effort
put into it to even be considered relevant for copyright at all. So while, say Loubie’s Dragon designs are,
no doubt original works of art, to which copyright does apply, this simple, blocky throne design
might not quite pass the threshold. Actually, neither do these companies’ logos,
as they are not complex enough. They are still registered trademarks, though,
which, we’ll touch on in a second. Contrary to popular belief, a creator does
not need to register their work or add any sort of mark or text to their work to own
the copyright on it. So basically, any image, video, music piece,
design, etc. that falls into the criteria I just mentioned is essentially (c)opyright
the creator, all rights reserved. And that means *you* can’t use it. Yes, you’re allowed to view it, but you
can’t use it on your own website, post it to Facebook or use it on a business card,
you can’t integrate it into your own work or even publish modified versions. And neither a disclaimer like “I don’t
own the content shown here” nor attribution to the original author are magic bullets that
suddenly make that ok. The US has a specialty there in the form of
“fair use”, meaning you are allowed to use excerpts, for example from music tracks
or movies, to discuss, criticize and parody the material as long as you add your own spin. Now, the question is, how does this even apply
to 3D printing? Well, there’s definitely a bit of discussion
going on in that area, but my understanding is something like this: When you’ve got
an original 3D design and simply print it, the resulting part is still a reproduction
of that design and therefore covered under the author’s copy-rights. That is, considering you’re looking at the
design that is encapsulated in, for example an stl file, and not just the bits and bytes
of the file itself. But in either case, grabbing artsy designs,
printing them and selling them for profit is probably not ok. And even just publishing designs based on
other original content can infringe on their copyright, as for example the authors of a
3D-printable rocket design based on the TinTin comics and another designer who published
a left shark got to know when their designs were removed from Thingiverse after a DMCA
notice. However, when it comes to something like design
files and electronics schematics, the current legal understanding is that, while the actual
drawing of e.g. a schematic is original work applicable to copyright, the actual function
of the circuit is not. So while you can’t redistribute and reuse
the actual drawing itself, you can still make copies of the circuit and use it for your
own purposes since that’s the exclusively functional portion of it, which isn’t protected
by copyright. And here’s where Creative Commons comes
in. As a copyright owner, you have the choice
of explicitly allowing others to use your work. For free. This doesn’t mean giving away the copyright,
you’re just giving out usage rights. Creative Commons lets you decide how and for
what purposes people and companies can use the content you release. The most drastic one would be the CC-0 license,
or public domain, where you allow anyone to use that work in any way and for any purpose. Obviously, unless you’re super religious
about sharing everything, signing away all rights might be too extreme, so Creative Commons
does allow you to put some conditions in place that people should follow when they use your
content. Those go from having to attribute the author
where his or her content is used or requiring any new content that is created from the original
one to be released under a compatible license, so if the original piece is Creative Commons
Attribution Share Alike, the resulting work also needs to be licensed as Creative Commons
Attribution Share alike. You could also add conditions like not allowing
to modify the work or not allowing it to be used in commercial products. That last one is a bit critical, because education
in particular isn’t clearly non-commercial, so often work with that license addendum doesn’t
get used where it’s needed most. These terms can be combined to form the various
Creative Commons licenses. So to recap copyright: By default, the creator
owns all rights to a creative work, so even when he or she shows or posts it publicly,
it doesn’t mean you can, too. Unless, of course, he decides to specify a
liberal license like Creative Commons that allows other people to use their work. Copyright does not apply to many 3D printable
models, as they are either purely functional or don’t pass the threshold of originality. But wait, there’s more! Let’s quickly touch on trademarks before
we move on to patents. So unlike copyright, a trademark does usually
need to be registered. Its purpose is to identify who made a product,
which for example keeps Pepsi from making a product called “Coca Cola” or even from
using similar sounding names or logos on their products. Keep in mind that trademarks and copyright
are mostly independent of each other, for example, the copyright on many of the earlier
Mickey Mouse shorts has expired, while the character design and name is still a trademark
of The Walt Disney Company. And companies do need to enforce their trademark
or it will be considered abandoned, so don’t be surprised when your flexible filament shoe
design bearing those three stripes gets taken down or you even get some snailmail from a
lawyer for publishing it in the first place. Now, patents start where copyright leaves
off, at least when it comes to functional designs. A registered patent will have a similar effect
to copyright when it comes to principles of operation, processes and mechanical functions. The difference being, of course, a patent
needs to be registered and paid for, which will give you a maximum of 20 years of protection
of your invention. However, for those 20 years, the patent holder
has the exclusive right to sell and import goods that use the technology covered by the
patent. And in the same way way that copyrighted things
can be licensed for others to use, so can a patent, but it’s usually not going to
be free. Quite the opposite, actually. Patents are key factors when it comes to defending
your company against patent claims – we’ve seen this in Apple vs Samsung regularly, where
both parties know they are infringing each other’s patents and essentially just use
the court case to figure out who should be paying whom how much money. They are also routinely used in judging how
much a company is worth and can even serve as trading goods, which is where patent hoarders
or patent trolls stem from. And that is because patents are hugely more
powerful than copyright – they don’t only apply to an exact part a manufacturer makes,
but also to any other implementations somebody else works out by using the same principles. So, say you owned a patent for the process
of using a heated nozzle to melt plastic and then smearing that down in layers to make
an object, in that case nobody else would be allowed to make an FDM 3D printer unless
the patent holder – in that case, Stratasys – allowed it. And rest assured, for those 20 years from
1989 to 2009 Stratasys definitely made sure that sure that patent was used only where
they approved. Which is also why the RepRap project got started
right after the patent expired. The thing is, for a patent to be considered
valid, it needs to be a considerable advancement of the state of the art and there can’t
be any prior art, so you or your company actually have to be the ones inventing something new
and, in theory, can’t just copy someone else’s prior work. And one spicy detail about patents is that,
by design, they need to be public. Some companies actually don’t patent their
developments to keep others from using them as a blueprint and evading the patent claims
by modifying a few minor details. But it looks like that “the rich get richer”
system of patents is slowly getting a bit of a makeover. There have been some efforts to limit the
power of patent trolls that only buy patents to sue others without actually making use
of the patents for developing a product. Also, Tesla has declared that their patents
will never be used to attack a competitor for using them, but only as defense when someone
to sue them over patents they might be infringing on. Elon Musk has called their “open source”
or “public domain”, which technically, are terms that only apply to copyright, but
we get the idea. So let’s talk about open source in the context
of trademarks, patents, and copyright. Because at its core, the “open source”
term only means that you are opening up the source files of your finished product – for
software, that is the source code that the program is compiled from and for hardware,
the design files, drawings and such, are typically considered the “source”. For something to be considered “open source”
as intended, those source files need to come with a liberal license that allows universal
reuse. So for example a creative commons no-derivatives
or Noncommercial license is often not considered a true open-source license because, even though
the source files are public, you’re still severely limited when it comes to how you
can use those files. In general, someone publishing something as
open-source will make all files available that are needed to reproduce and modify it,
and also allow that reproduction and modification to happen by attaching a liberal license. And the idea behind this is that instead of
having to figure out the same things independently of each other, everyone can build on previous
work and then also shares their work under a liberal license for other to use. This creates an ecosystem of open-source products
that each have a much easier job getting to the finish line, and in turn give back to
the community. But keep in mind that while something can
be shared with, say, a Creative Commons or GPL license, patents and trademarks of third
parties are completely independent of that and might still put some restriction on how
you can them. So while open-source software is pretty much
figured out with the various GPL licenses, hardware is a bit of a different story. Putting 1 and 1 together, as functional hardware
isn’t covered by copyright, it seems as though there wouldn’t be any restrictions
on copying, say, 3D printer hardware or entire machines unless they are protected by patents. Which seems counterintuitive, but after the
research I’ve done on these topics, it seems like that is exactly the case. I might have to update to my position on clone
product for that. So, let’s recap: Copyright applies to all
creative work and grants the creator the exclusive right to share the work. Trademarks typically need to be registered
and identify a specific product or company. Patents protect inventions and unique functional
designs, and while they are valuable assets to a company, they will also expire within
a given time. And lastly, open source is the idea of deliberately
sharing plans of a design for others to use for their own projects. Now, obviously, if i did get something wrong,
let me know in the comments below, this video isn’t legal advice, but a summary of the
research i’ve done over the years. If you thought this video was helpful to you,
give it a thumbs up, if not, let me know what i can improve. Also consider subscribing to the channel,
and because Youtube only really shows you updates from the channel if you also check
the bell, remember to also do that. Check out the affiliate links from the video
description to shop on Amazon, eBay, Matterhackers and iGo3D, those don’t cost you a single
penny extra, or if you want to support this channel with a spare dollar or two, head over
to Patreon and get access to monthly Q&A hangouts and more. And that’s it for today, thanks for watching,
and I’ll see you in the next one.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

84 thoughts on “What you need to know about Copyright, Patents, Trademarks and Open Source!

  1. I'll sum it up for you in one sentence instead of a 15 minute video:

    'If you don't sell or distribute anything, you can do whatever the fuck you want."

  2. Makerbot is a fine one for this… Taking Taking Taking ok we have milked the community for what its worth time to lock up shop…

  3. One interesting detail about patents being public is that makers or even companies can use the patented designs when creating their own machines. The in-house built machines can even be used to create commercial products (e.g. 3D prints) as long as the machines them selves are not made commercially available.

  4. Heres a question: What If you download a model that isn't copywritten and use it commercially, but the model was a reupload of another model that was. If the original maker goes to take legal action, who would they go after?

  5. Error:Line Number is not Last Line Number+1, Last Line: 0
    [ERROR] Error:Line Number is not Last Line Number+1, Last Line: 0

    Can you helpme please?
    I know this is not the place, but i couldn't find it anywhere else.

  6. Hey Thomas, if you can check your last video! (The version of this one that you uploaded earlier)

    I left you some questions I was hoping you may be able to clear up in a future video "What truly is Open Source" Or something along those lines.

    Let me know if you can't view the previous comments as I'll post it again!

  7. Copyright is moot because it was designed to protect the big corporations. Maker John Doe can't afford to depend on copyright, and it is most cost-effective to generally pretend it a) isn't there for you and b) if it's there, it is against you.

    If you want to make a living out of 3D printing just set up a Patreon or something. There's many people making a living out of "free work" that gets donated to in exchange for a perk or two. Either that or accept that someone, somewhere, is going to leech off but suing isn't even worth it.

    My wife is in a similar boat – she draws for a living and sometimes people put her drawings (unauthorized) on e.g. shirts for sale. Suing would be a lot of work and is not a rewarding endeavor, not to mention it is downtime from actual work and a total drag.

  8. Tom! Excellent as always. Question unrelated to the topic. What is the color and manufacturer of that light green spool behind you in this video (just under your elbow)? My wife loves that color so I want to get a spool to print things for her.

  9. great video. Congrats Tom.

    I have a question about CC. I have some CC content in Thingiverse/MMF and i don't want people earn money selling my designs (the STL files) but i have no issue with people who sells printed figures with my designs (anyone with a 3dhub by example). ¿It's the CC – Non Comercial the license i should use?

    And another tricky question: if i have a generative algorithm, the STL's generated are protected with the same license that the algorithm?

    Thanks

  10. If I had a button to abolish all of that copyright, patents and bullshit, I would push it. It's overhead added to the evolution of technology and the development of the human species.

  11. Patents also do not have this magical 10% rule either. A design/function that is patented give protection and forcible claim on those that infringe it. A contest of a patent in defense requires the patent owner to prove that their patent does not infringe even after it is awarded. Patent searches are made at the time of applying for a patent and many months pass during this phase.

    At the review, you will be presented many potential conflicts with other patents where word or function searches show similarities. At this time you have to write a statement and show cause why your invention or process is different and this is where people think the 10% rule applies…. IT DOES NOT. The Patent office is responsible for ensuring that reasonable effort is made to the uniqueness of a design. This is often measured against the intent of use of the product. Where similar processes can be applied to be used for different functions. For example… you can't patent ohm's law or resistors or LEDs (unless you've made a new type of LED) or generic processes.

    This means that for the most part of your patent application, it will be rejected, and only the unique parts are captured in the approved patent. So what happens with your patent? Thousands of people with patents for LED lighting applications, and the only bit they can enforce, is how they use it or what it means in it's use.

    Patents can be used offensively, but represent SIGNIFICANT cost! A defendant with a patent must also have to pay to prove they are unique too, at cost!

    Sometimes a Patent offensive strike is not to stop someone using their own patent. But a financial tactical attack to bleed the small scale operator dry of cash before they can implement and make money from their own patented invention.

    It's shit… but it does happen.

    Big business patent warfare is rarely a defense of patent ownership, but merely shots fired at an opponents bank balance!

  12. Tom, this question I have been meaning to ask you for a long time but all of those spools of plastic behind you in the videos don't they soak up moisture? What is the RH near them?

  13. Nice summary of the system.

    Just some some of my observations and thoughts in response to the content;

    Trade Secrets was not covered (eg. the Coca Cola recipe) but I do not know if this class of protection is that well used outside of North America so perhaps it was not used enough to be mentioned.I think that it has fallen out of favour myself.

    I would also mention that Patents protect the owner against replication for the purpose of profit. A patent is actually a public document and anyone can read it, understand it and use it to design and build a copy however the copy is for educational purposes and cannot be sold (I don't think it can be given to someone else either). Historically, the argument for patents was to "encourage innovation" and that would be hard to do if one could not build a copy from the patent in order to try and improve on it to the point at which it goes beyond the scope of the patent.

    As to copying a mechanical design, well historically I believe that's why Patents were created. So if the design is not patented (or the patent expired) then it can be copied and sold. As you said, the SLA technology patent ran out and so became open domain so there really is not any way for, say Prusa, too protect his printer design and so it is cloned ad nauseum.

    – Eddy

  14. Excellent.
    This is great even for people outside of 3D printing. I know in school I had to do at least 2 assignments that had to explain much of this.

  15. Interested to hear how your opinion has changed on the clone printers, perhaps when you do the Anet A8 video. I've got one in the mail and I've heard you have one coming too.

  16. Here's the catch-22 about Trademarks: Brands want their brand name to be widely-known. However, if a brand name becomes so widely-known that the public comes to identify an entire class of products by that name, it has become "diluted," and loses trademark status. "Aspirin" used to be Bayer's trademarked brand name for their specific product. Now, it is a generic term for any brand of acetylsalicylic acid pain reliever. This is why companies such as Xerox and Lego have PR campaigns to remind the public that those words refer to specific brands, not generic classes of products. See also: TVTropes article "Stuck on Band-Aid Brand."

  17. So if somebody ask me for print something from Thingiverse, can I (as a company) print that and sell the print as a "Printing Order" regardless for 'What I'm printed out'?

  18. A great example to see the extent some people go to avoid infringing copyright is this:
    http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:362162
    That guy has gone to great extent to avoid infringing on copyright.

  19. Patents suck… Even if you create something good you have to pay a huge amount of $ building your defense every time someone questions your patent rights… Big companies will bankrupt you in no time if they really need what you made.

  20. So, this means anyone can go to thingiverse and download a functional part – for example a Bowden extruder – 3D print it and sell it because copy right does not cover 'functional' parts and the uploader does not have a patent?

  21. copyright, trademarks, and patents, are only enforceable if you have the money to do so. For example you make an item, put it on thingiverse and have it copyrighted. Someone else prints and sells it you get mad. But do you have the money to go after the person? Because if you don't good luck. If its something you want to stay yours DO NOT SHARE IT. Because there are many people in this world capable of taking advantage of the system and get away with it.

  22. Why does Reprap project start right after the patent on 3D printers expired?
    Stasys can sue anyone that make the machine for their own use as well? Or it because we can't publish the info about DIY 3D printers?
    Or maybe just because thing like filament are hard to get hand on before the patent is gone?

  23. Nice video! One thing I found interesting (Assuming I understand it correctly) is that anything published under a creative commons license is either free for everyone to reproduce commercially such as CC BY/BY SA, or restricted so nobody (including the author) can reproduce commercially.

  24. It's odd that any of this exists since the human brain is not capable of creating content. We can only combine previous sensory input.

  25. I have a question then, what about the Chevy emblems and Ford emblems on thingiverse, those are trademarked and licensed for use only by the respective company but you see them all the time on items that aren't licensed. Another big one is the guy who created the 3d printed LS Camaro engine and put it on thingiverse. He used copyrighted and patented drawings to create it and is reselling the 3d prints, legally he'd be infringing on TM, Copyright and Patents.

  26. I have only been following your channel a few weeks but so far I like your work and the information you share.

    Great job.

  27. Really informative! Thanks for the video, really clears up a lot of the fog around copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. I look forward to your next videos!

  28. A caveat about fair use: it's a valid legal defense to use in court, but it's only really applicable in court, it doesn't keep you out of a court.

  29. So what about the share button on any content on the Internet? When I share your webpage as post on Facebook "I profit" from "Your content"…

  30. One thing you didn't talk about was 3D scanning. If you scan an object like the Coca Cola bottle, whose shape is trademarked, and then distribute the file or prints made from the file, you are infringing on Coca Cola's trademark.

  31. This is a really important subject! Thank you for talking about it, after all much of the things that are printed are downloaded and copied from the internet. And that's a bad thing in the eye some "important people".

    And i just read that you are coming ti Sweden Thomas! Looking forward to talking to you!

  32. Excellent video! The Blender 3D store is an interesting creative commons example because it's all creative commons stuff they sell digitally so you don't technically have to buy anything from there and can instead download the files for free from them instead (although it's cool to support them)

  33. Great video Tom. It surprises me there isn't more suites drawn in this area, and perhaps it's because it's not a large enough problem, but I have a feeling we are setting the stage for a crack down.

  34. A much needed video for the community – it would be cool if you could go through issues like printing or requesting copyrighted works through places like 3D Hubs, which seems to cause a lot of arguments in online forums.

    I hadn't realized just how little copyright you had on functional designs – very interesting.

  35. Hey Tom I have the prusa i3 mk2 and I was wondering why layers where the plastic bind together to look smooth like the first layer and last layer…some lines peel or curl up and making that top or bottom layer rough. Is there a way I can fix this? Thanks. If you can do a video about this that would be great.

  36. If you think you are developing something that is worth a patent application keep a development diary with time and date with details. In the event of disputes it proves the development process. BUT if some large company wants what you have, money wins every time. That's the way of the world.

  37. For those who want to abolish patents and stuff: The big idea behind patents are, that they open the idea to everyone to improve the topic to an advanced state while the original patent holder is able to earn money and build up or run his company. If you are a private person you can always use the patents idea, but not as a competitor. The other option always was and still is to keep your knowledge secret. The world will be limited in its developing and educational speed then. Another topic is "Geschmacksmuster" to prevent anyone other as Porsche (as example) to build automobiles which look like porsche cars.

  38. This is a great video. As a content creator/artist I really don't like seeing derivatives of my work. I have seen Things that have had one tiny little modification and then published as original work. After seeing a lot of that I decided to explore much of what you have mentioned in your video. I think If you plan on modifying someone else's work its appropriate to contact the original creator and give him/her the content to augment his work, otherwise keep it for yourself and don't publish it.

  39. Here's pretty much the only thing you need to know about IP — "It's Brain Damage" — This is a TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc — Every time you pretend that IP is a real thing, and worth talking about, you not only give it power, but you also give everyone a headache. — Please stop perpetuating the cycle.

  40. You got "Open Source" wrong, well kinda. While this term is loosely applied to almost all community projects it is not a free ticked to run wild with it. The author (be it a real or legal person) can attach any licenses and conditions to it he likes, like only to be used with "our" hardware or only for documentary purposes.
    (Which most people obey of course -_- http://blog.wolfire.com/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App-Store-developing )

  41. That was an extremely educational video. The Heated Build Chamber is one that I have been researching quite a bit, as well as Arcam's Electron Beam Melting to try to reverse engineer it…as an educational project, of course.

    You are very well spoken, your research is thorough. When people ask me what I do as an Engineering Student, they must have an image of a "geek" in a lab coat somewhere, when they find out the majority of the time is spent reading or researching it is always a surprise.

    Tom, you seem like the type of student that wanted more out of school and prefer to self-educate yourself. Am I wrong? What area of engineering did you study?

    I want to work with you or for you. You enjoy what you do, as a direct result, I believe the value of your videos (on the topics you've covered so far) is unparalleled.

    How should someone get in touch with you to send you products to test?

  42. Patent law failure is that two people could come up with the same idea simultaneously and only the one who can (or wants to) "protect" it with a patent ends up with the rights to use it. I always think back to the lunchables patent on crustless PB&J. Not an innovative idea by a long shot… lots of people cut their crust and crimping the edges… that too. Yet they got a patent on the idea.
    Overly long medical patents kill people because of monopolistic pricing.
    I wish creative people and inventors could just be paid to create and invent and share, and not worry about becoming wealthy.

  43. Tesla will not sue others for their patents? Have you actually read those patents, they patented things that already existed or are outdated anyway, that's why they don't care about other people using it, because Tesla will lose that court anyway.
    Their patents serve the purpose of marketing and making them seem technically advanced.
    No but really, they patented silent relays: yes, just a simple relay but without the clicking sound; which is something that was already on the market before they patented it.
    Or another one was an extruded aluminium tube: no, not a special profile, a round tube, which is shaped like an 8 on one end and as a 0 on the other end.
    I mean good luck suing someone for that; they just claim their patents are free for the sake of marketing it as "it's for you, the people".
    In order to prevent someone else from suing you, it's no use patenting it yourself, you just have to show the judge you had that technology first.

  44. Left shark was removed from Shapeways.com/shop/amznfx but not from thingiverse.. also it was returned to Shapeways after Katy perry didn't prove she owned copyright

  45. Tom , about patents , you have one more consideration , company secrets , space x , Elon "We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China," "If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book. :"http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-patents-2012-11"

  46. Hey I have a really important question. Now I wanted to 3d print to sell items. items such as day to day items like, certain kitchen tools, cell phone cases, drones, certain toys, and accessories like go pro holders. we won't display any trademark names of any product. since I know I can not simply take a persons 3d print file and start commercially selling it. Now, what if I had someone else look at the designers work. be able to build on it and improve it and possibly change some of the layout of the design of the product, colors and some materials will also be different also. would that still be infringing any copyright?

  47. So, Stratasys is the ones to thank for not letting people use FDM tech for 20 years, I guess. That wasn’t a rocket science invention, yet it kept the whole world from
    Being able to advance that tech. VERY lame. I didn’t like stratasys before, now I will hate them just a bit more. A very greedy company just became much greedier in my eyes.

  48. I appreciate what your doing here, although I feel like the topic your covering is common sense in most regards. I hope your next video is on something a bit more exciting, like a more indepth explanation/documentation on using trinamic 2130 with 2560 based 3d printers 🙂

  49. There is a bottom-line question in any copyright, licensing or patent issue:
    If you copy something for your own jollies, life is good, you owe nobody anything.
    Private use clause is well established; you can have all the advanced technology 'they' are keeping from everyone, you just can't share it with anyone!
    If y'all make a copy for someone else, sell a copy, claim it as your own work, fail to credit Author for derivative works, then there are legal issues.
    The only people who argue passionately for the abolition of private property are poor folks crying for a hand-out.
    "You have some, I got none! Crime!" is not the grown-up way of living in this world.

  50. I have a toy design that I created and had 3d modeled, printed it as a prototype. It is a toy with no function, and is only aesthetic. If I were to have these mass produced and sold, would it be a copyright or a patent? It is an original work of art, but would making copies to sell as a toy make it need a patent?

  51. If I print an item, I can do with that item as I please. Legally. I can't sell the STL or use the pictures from the Creator, but legally I can print and sell the STL. It's scummy and I wouldn't, but it is 100% legal in the US.

  52. So I have made a conveyor belt system to automatically remove prints for one of my printers. Because this is patented by Makerbot am I not allowed to share my CAD files even though they are all my own original work and design?

  53. Ryan of MPCNC fame should watch this video. He would learn that except for his trademarks and logos, his design has absolutely no protection, and anyone who wants to can legally sell parts for it, design new parts for it, or change his design.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *