Ownership Of Work.

[Dazzler Fan]

Shapeways have a forum for hiring 3D drafting help at:-

 

http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=thread&frm_id=98&li=nav

Other 3D Printing operations have similar Forums.

                                      ********

I will continue to share experiences on 3D Printing, Laser Cutting & CAD Group

as others do, in order to further the knowledge of these new opportunities in

modelling. Getting things "Right" is expensive in the development process.

There are several contributors here, well known for their commercial investment

in 3D models, and with an eye towards recovering their valid costs.

I am careful to choose models not available elsewhere, gone out of production,

and lines not being presented by others - because I respect the work of others.

While there is nothing to stop readers, "Having a go" out of their own interest,

I think :"Hacking" of the published work for commercial purposes would be

Copyright Infringement.

I would hope this is supported by everyone, and is reported where it is seen.

 

Noel

[Rabs]

I don't understand what you mean - could you give an example of the sort of behaviour you want to stop?

[Dazzler Fan]

Rabs

 

PM'd

[billbedford]

All models are copies of something. If we are lucky they are copies of the prototype, but there are enough errors that have been perpetuated down the years to suggest that many many models are copies of other models.

[Dazzler Fan]

Bill

My models are researched from survey, drawings and photographs of the originals,

and I think that is about as close as any of us can get.

If you had a model suitable for modification  to meet an enquiry, it would be suggested.

There would be no passing-off to produce a knock-off.

I think that is what we have here.

 

Noel

[Wellyboots]

......I think :"Hacking" of the published work for commercial purposes would be

Copyright Infringement.

 

 

It depends on what you mean by 'published work': Do you mean copying an exsisting 3D object or do you mean using plans, diagrams, drawings or even pictures published in a book?

[Pacific231G]

 

Shapeways have a forum for hiring 3D drafting help at:-

 

http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=thread&frm_id=98&li=nav

Other 3D Printing operations have similar Forums.

                                      ********


I am careful to choose models not available elsewhere, gone out of production,

and lines not being presented by others - because I respect the work of others.

While there is nothing to stop readers, "Having a go" out of their own interest,

I think :"Hacking" of the published work for commercial purposes would be

Copyright Infringement.

I would hope this is supported by everyone, and is reported where it is seen.

 

Noel

I'm not sure what you mean Noel.

My lay understanding of Intellectual Property is that if someone copies another person's model, disassembling it and making moulds from it for example,  that's an infringement just as copying a photo or an article would be. It would also be daft as you'd be reproducing any errors or scale compromises they'd made. There is though absolutely no restriction on producing a new model of a prototype just because someone else is currently manufacturing a model of the same prototype. In fact if manufacturers agreed between themselves which models each of them was going to offer so as not to compete with one another that would be an illegal cartel.

You may choose not to compete with an existing product from a manufacturer, that's your choice, but I can't see anything illegal or immoral about doing so and buyers would then have a choice. Equally, if you were producing a model based on original drawings but you used published photos to check details about it you'd not be infringing the photographer's rights by using the prototype information revealed by their photo. 

 

[Kenton]

 

My models are researched from survey, drawings and photographs of the originals,

and I think that is about as close as any of us can get.

 

So if someone else did that they would probably end up with the same as you. Then I cannot see what makes you so special to own the copyright of that model?

 

It is quite different if you had invented something that has never existed before and then used your skills in 3D to manufacture it, I can see then you would have a right to be miffed at someone else claiming to invent it.

 

But simply say measuring a wheel, drawing it in a 3D package and then printing it - no that is not unique - if I had access to that wheel and the package to draw it in and a 3D printer - tell me what is the difference?

 

[Ed] Pacific231G - said wot I said but was quicker typing

[Miss Prism]

Noel - I too am not sure what kind of potential 'hacking' you are referring to. Do you mean the copying of someone else's CAD, or the use of an existing print to make masters in another material (for example)?

[corax67]

It may be an overly simplistic view on my part but if you don't want something you have done to be copied then don't put it on the web.

 

If a plan/drawing/specs can be downloaded in some form then in all probability someone will do just that to save themselves the hassle of doing the research or work themselves.

 

Copyright infringement law is something that keeps lawyers well paid.

 

Technology has always circumvented intellectual copyright - photocopiers for printed work, tape recorders for broadcast music, P2P sites for anything digital and now 3D scanners and printers are a tool of choice.

 

It is a sad state of affairs but realistically stuff happens - it's not right but it is life.

[alfsboy]

I think i get what you mean .if you produce a streamlined terrier (:-)  for printing and  another manufacturer buys one and then produces it in resin  and then sells it  as his own work ,then ts straighforward infringement of YOUR  artistic rights ,Never mind if the prototype is copyrighted in itself , like a Formula 1 car , thats a legal matter  due to the fact that both of you have infinged the teams copyright .I was once approached  ay an exhibition by a smart suited italian gentleman in dark glasses(think mafia types in The Italian Job ) who proceeded to warn me that Ferrari would sue me for my model of Enzo Ferrari .The man not the car .i told him that you cannot copyright the dead in the UK .We left it at that and I thought what a daft sad git to bother about all this .Of course I have heard nothing but rip offs of my figures appear on the net and Ebay .Ebay I can get to remove the  item as I hold the master pattern and can prove its all my work .This is the third can of worms i have mentioned lately .I include a shot of my "old man"[

 

attachment=350412:enz.jpg]

[Dazzler Fan]

This is about Attitude, and respect for development work of others.

I think my items are fairly widely known within the community, and Sheaves are

made available for one-offs to requirements. Yet there was no relevant reference

offered to direct the query.

I don't think posting on this Forum should not be up for grabs in a deliberate commercial

passing-off by another poster. I don't see a problem If posters "Have a go" for themselves.

 

Andy Y is pretty hot at taking down pictures where posters do not have the rights

to copy. I think some kind of arrangement should also be available when complaints

arise of deliberate commercial passing-off by another posters.

I have been told we are not in the Soviet Union, yet behaviour such as this has the

very effect of clamping down on what is otherwise a vibrant Forum
 

Regards to you all.
 

Noel

[billbedford]

This getting more and more bizarre.

[Talltim]

Your posts are pretty hard to decipher, it's like you try and avoid actually mentioning the subject of your sentences. This many posts in and I still have no idea what the issue actually is.

[Etched Pixels]

I would be very careful what you accuse people of and what you ask Andy Y to do - in particular I don't think you understand the limits of copyright or the duties of competition law.

 

Copyright protects an instance of artistic expression. So if you designed a model of a piece of mine gear then you might be able to claim copyright over your actual model. If someone else comes along and makes their own model of the same thing - well tough. Be glad the world works that way or we'd have no Bachmann or Dapol or Hornby because each time they wanted to produce a model where there was already a kit they wouldn't be allowed. We'd have a world where if there was a bad kit of loco X, nobody else could ever produce a better one or an RTR loco.

 

I mean seriously - imagine a world where if I took a photograph of a class 47 at Taunton and I could sue you for taking your own photograph of the same scene ? or one where Agatha Christie got sued because someone else had already written crime stories ?

 

So if you produce a sheave, and someone else comes along and produces a sheave in competition with you then that's market forces. Furthermore it's generally illegal to attempt to collude in the marketplace in order to remove competition.

 

"Passing off" by the way only applies to trademarks. It's the offence committed when you commercially sell a product which has the trademarks of others on it - for example if you put "Chanel" on a bottle of perfume you made in the shed.

 

In the case of a sheave you may have another problem anyway - for a generic sheave its an object with no artistic value so I strongly suspect it can no more be copyrighted by anyone than a screw or a 5cm cube could. If your mine sheaves are accurate models of real world sheaves then that may be different, but a generic sheave is a trivial piece of computer programming in fact one simpler than a gear or worm.

 

Alan

[Kenton]

 

Of course I have heard nothing but rip offs of my figures appear on the net and Ebay .Ebay I can get to remove the  item as I hold the master pattern

I think, or at least my interpretation of the OP, is that we are talking about different things here.

 

If your figures are castings which you own the masters for then if I simply used one of your castings to produce my own copies that would be wrong. If I produced my own castings from my masters that looked identical to yours, that would still be wrong.

 

However if I purchased one of your painted figures and for example didn't like the colour so repainted it then there is nothing wrong with that - even if my inadequate painting is considered bad - then I probably wouldn't sell any and the chance of any profit would be slim (having already paid you for your work).

 

As I understand it the OP is claiming a 'licence' on the research and the process to produce a product. This is very dubious and by doing so he would be preventing all others from engaging in the same research and use of a public process. That would be uncompetitive practise. I acknowledge the effort put into the research , drawing and printing but he would be denying me that same process to possibly do it better, cheaper and possibly more successfully.

 

Unless you have a unique object or process - that can be patented. As I see it you have neither.

[ben racey]

Completely baffled here as well!

 

Regards

 

Richard.

[Red Devil]

Completely baffled here as well!

 

Regards

 

Richard.

Another one, this is well over my head.....

 

I do know of instances where shall we say a 3d print model has very quickly been joined by a resin cast item, but this, I'm afraid is baffling me?

[alfsboy]

There is a major Chinese manufacturer  of model cars in resin who rips/ripped off others masters .They alter them and actually improve some but its still a rip off .I even made a master  pattern  of a car joking to the people commissioning it that I couldnt wait to see the Chinese rip off .They replied that nor could they but as it will always be "on order " from China they will still sell enough of theirs .I am making a Lotus 63 at present and cant wait to get the rip off .It will save me making the kit LOL.Things have improved somewhat and they  are even making models that no-one else has done ...which is nice .

[ben racey]

If my limited sales on shapeways are anything to go by, then if they do rip them off, they'll be in for a shock.....! The whole thing for me is that 3d printing offers up a method for me to pursue my somewhat esoteric prototype interests with greater accuracy, detail and ease, than has been possible before...

 

Regards

 

Richard

[backofanenvelope]

I am also not sure what the direction of this (OP's) posting is going but am prepared to see some more explanation if they want to, if not I feel this is not relevant to this group as the primary focus is on 'producing' and learning 3D modelling.

T.

[69843]

So, this raises an interesting point:

If I had a kit, took a few measurements off it for the general outline and then 'built' the CAD file from those dimensions due to no drawings being readily available,  does that count?

 

Purely hypothetical question by the way

[Etched Pixels]

It depends and is very complicated - consult a lawyer with expertise in the area if you really need to know for a specific project. I wouldn't personally be worried if it was just a few measurements (eg so you could confirm the scaling of a pile of photographs and other stuff you work working from), but a) I'm not a lawyer b) this does not constitute advice from anyone qualified.

 

A dimension is a "fact" and cannot be copyrighted. A large set of dimensions may be protected under other rights (database rights for example), and a drawing may well have artistic value (eg in how it is drawn and presented) and be copyrightable (but not always). It can also depend whether the use of the work is "transformational". Consider the difference between measuring up from a photograph and building a model and simply making a copy of the photograph.

 

In essence there is a line from 'resin casting the other model' to 'checking the length with a ruler'. Somewhere on that line  is the point at which your lawyer would say 'I would go no further'. Somewhere nearer the other end of the line the other sides lawyer would say 'beyond this point you may be able to sue' and in the middle between those two is a murky swamp of uncertainty where nobody is entirely sure and it can get expensive, or lead to anger, recriminations and bad feeling.

 

A further consideration is what is called "estoppel", which is basically a complicated lawyerese way of saying "a promise". Eg if I published a book of drawings titled "Drawings For Modellers" and tried to sue you for working extensively from one of those drawings I'd almost certainly lose spectacularly. In titling the book I probably created a promise that you could use the drawings for model making.

 

If its a small organisation who made the original not some faceless corporate entity, you could always ask them if they mind. A lot of small folk can be very helpful and may well be happy to tell you where they obtained the drawings they used.

 

Alan

[billbedford]

So, this raises an interesting point:

If I had a kit, took a few measurements off it for the general outline and then 'built' the CAD file from those dimensions due to no drawings being readily available,  does that count?

 

If you use the subsequent model only for your own use, then that is allowable. If you started to sell your models then there is a murky area where what is allowable would depend on just how well they were distinguishable from the original models. But if you sold your model as 'Genuine Hornby/Bachmann' then expect to have some intense, and expensive, conversations with m'learned friends.

[Etched Pixels]

If you use the subsequent model only for your own use, then that is allowable.

 

This is mostly a myth. The UK does not have any general exception for "fair use" nor for "non commercial" in copyright law. We have a very very narrow 'fair dealing' rule set, which most lawyers will tell you is so narrow and so unpredictable it is basically useless except for news reporting and some academic corner cases. It also only applies to some types of media. We *do* have a practical version of it, which is the 'if you resin cast it at home then nobody will ever find out' ;-) but that isn't the same thing.

 

There are certain things you can usually do under fair dealing rules. Making *one* copy of a drawing for private personal non-commercial research and study is one of those. Make two or share it and you are committing an actionable breach of copyright law, make a few more intentionally and you could (in theory at least) face criminal sanctions.

 

Many countries do have exceptions for some classes of personal copying or private use, we are not in general one of them (design rights sometimes excepted). In addition for many things displaying them at an exhibition is 'public performance' and what little exceptions we have are even less useful then.

 

Our politicians (of all major parties) are basically all owned by the big media companies and are still fighting against basic things like the right to make a parody or to take a CD you own and copy the songs onto your MP3 player (still technically an offence) so it seems unlikely we'll see broader 'fair use' rules in the near future.

 

Another entertaining problem is that the term "non-commercial" has no defined meaning. In fact it's a nightmare as the Creative Commons project found out with its "non-commercial" licence options. Everybody knows what "non commercial" means, but nobody actual agrees.

 

Another thing to beware of not so much in 3D print but other forms is that if you build a model using various bits from other places (eg funnels, buffers, chunks sawn out of an RTR model etc) you probably need licences from the producers of each component that is sufficiently artistic in value to be copyrightable. In the 3D print world the same applies if you use other people's components in your design (eg downloaded STL files), but it's a bit more obvious then what the licensing is.

 

Alan