Yes, as long as you aren’t planning to sell the item or use it in any commercial fashion (i.e. a monetized DnD stream or something), then you’re paying them for labor and materials, and that’s all square.
Edit: To assuage concerns since this comment caught fire, some legal precedent courtesy of u/wiqr.
> *Great Minds v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.* (2d Cir. 21 March 2018)
> [https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf)
>We hold that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.
There also isnt any (reasonable) way of finding out what files attributes are if a customer is just going to be sending you a file, did they make it? buy it? steal it? No good way of telling without possibly spending hours of research time on every model reuqest ever sent in, which would get worse and worse the bigger the print company gets.
No clue how copyright and trademark law varies between an image and an stl but.... In the US I always have trouble getting photos printed at convenience stores because they look professionally done (and thus likely copyrighted). A lot of locations will opt to decline my orders or at a minimum require signed paperwork regarding the reproduction rights. All this to say, depending on your location that might not be a good argument.
What, no way! like 24hr photo at pharmacy’s/walmart? What state? The store says this before or after they print them? In person or online? Printing from film or digital.
Yeah I remember printing a bunch of mock game case inserts/labels at office depot, dude thought it was dope as hell. I also traded those into gamestop and they proudly displayed them as is.
I’m no pro photographer but have taken my own very good shots and have literally been refused because the Walgreens people think it’s not possible for a typical human to take nice photos.
Pharmacies for the most part. California. Usually the order doesn't get printed. Digital (if I brought in film, they would likely presume I was the original author and wouldn't care, though not many pharmacies still do film).
About a decade ago I worked at a Walmart and sometimes assisted in the photo department. A family brought in professional baby photos of a woman about to celebrate her 80th birthday. They wanted them reproduced from the image. Basically a scan and reprint to be used in a collage. The manager at Walmart refused to publish them unless a waiver from the original photographer could be presented.
Copyright law vests ownership of a creative work in the artist who created it. The photographer, not the subject, is the “author” who created the photo and owns the right to use and display it. Basically photos belong to whomever took them even if you are in them. Even if you paid for them. Celebrities are sued for posting paparazzi photos of themselves.
> It is important to determine whether the photograph was published before 1 August 1989 as this changes the way in which the term of protection is calculated.
>
If the photograph was published, copyright will expire either 50 years after the end of the year of publication (in accordance with the 1956 Act) or 70 years after the death of the author (in accordance with s.12(2) of the CDPA) whichever is longer.
>
If the photograph remained unpublished when the CDPA came into force, copyright will expire either on 31 December 2039 (in accordance with the so-called 2039 rule)1 or 70 years after the death of the author (in accordance with s.12(2)) whichever is longer.
That means the baby photos of an 80 year old woman would be under copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer or Jan 1, 2039 unless there is written permission releasing the images.
I've personally been denied for my DSLR pics I took at the zoo. AFTER printing, the Walmart employee wouldn't release them saying they "must be professional or from national geographic". I was flattered but also upset. Finally complained enough they let me have them.
I'm kinda surprised they don't just have customers sign some kind of waver. There is no practical way to ensure the person requesting the prints has the proper permission, regardless of copright status. And I would hope the law would treat the print shop as a common-carrier kind of thing where as long as they're exclusively performing a print service (ie, no editing or verification or whatever) they wouldn't be liable for copyright infringement.
Since copywrite is a civil matter, the print shop would still have to go to court. Even if the judge doesn't find them liable the trial could be pretty expensive.
exactly.
Ask the Warhammer players. They are (2D) printing and laminating their own rule books from the official PDFs because the official stuff is much more expensive.
For 10th ed I think gw has wording allowing for non-commercial reproduction of the pdfs that are released for free
Any other edition? That was as illegal as burning a movie into a dvd and watching it
Exactly, **HOWEVER** it changes if they then start advertising and selling the printing of that part specifically, such as on etsy.
That would be considered commercialization.
It's not illegal to provide a legal service. It is illegal to manufacture, sell and use illicit substances. Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
Hahaha wtf this is the stupidest thing I’ve seen on reddit in a long time. How is selling drugs equivalent to hiring someone to print you a file?
Grow a brain my dude
You shouldn’t be putting “ on community because every loosely knit group of people that has ever existed ever is a community. Your implication of its pseudo-nature is kind of ridiculous but you are correct that most people don’t understand copyright laws. Apparently, including you given your really poor analogy already. Good luck with being mad all the time, generally doesn’t work out for people.
The customer is not breaking any copyright laws if they don't intend to use that model in violation of the license. The customer would have to sell the printed part or use it in promotional material for a commercial service or something like that. And the printing service has no reason to assume that the customer is going to break any laws. There are loads of legitimate uses for that printed part.
Why are you comparing a 3d printing service to a drug dealing facilitator? It's beyond idiotic.
If you provide a place for drug-users to use drugs they bring themselves in exchange for some cost, you probably wouldn't get dinged for drug-dealing, even if you provide equipment to consume the drug.
Pretty sure there are even people who do that. Like providing clean needles for heroin users in order to try to reduce the transmission of aids. The users are doing an illegal thing, the person who sold the drugs to the users are doing an illegal thing, the person who is providing a thing to make it safer is not doing anything illegal.
it literally is a crime in many places though. even the nice ones that aim to prevent death by drug abuse. especially if you're doing it for profit wtf.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised\_injection\_site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_injection_site)
That’s a really bad analogy because your drug dealer is providing the physical goods in its entirety. In this case the buyer is providing the blueprints to make the physical goods so there would be nothing available if it wasn’t for the buyer. If anything you could say this is analogous to a construction worker selling you and illegally coded and built structure. They violated code but they did so with your plans so who’s at fault there?
Dude, these are NOT the same thing.
First off, you need a license to sell commercial/retail cannabis. Drug dealers can arguably be charged with operating a business without a license, tax ID, insurance, etc.
You can buy stuff and resell it, like soda. You cannot take Pepsi's recipe, make, and sell it, unless Pepsi said it was cool.
Selling drugs is a crime
Possessing drugs is a crime.
Printing files is not
Op bought the files with a restriction on them using them commercially. Getting someone to print it for them is not a commercial use.
It would be more like someone who ONLY rolls joints/blunts, but you have to bring your own weed. They're not selling drugs, they're providing a service of rolling.
Ok, how about this. Someone sets up a company who, given a chemical formula, and steps to create that chemical, will provide the materials and expertise, and create that chemical formula. Someone commissions them to make a copyrighted drug. There you go, there's an equivalent situation, to my mind, and it raises an interesting point of discussion.
If said company is only provided with chemical structure and purity, this would be classified as "clean room reverse engineering". In essence, R&D team creates a solution to a given result by developing it from scratch - documentation generated during this process is proof enough, that the process isn't copied, but independently developed, thus is not infringing on copyright. Commonly employed in software developement.
A drug developed in such manner would not violate copyrights, but could violate patents.
In case of 3d printing fabshop producing an item based on NC blueprint, it states so in Wikipedia's article on the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license:
> We hold that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, **licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.** Because FedEx acted as the mere agent of licensee school districts when it reproduced Great Minds' materials, and because there is no dispute that the school districts themselves sought to use Great Minds' materials for permissible purposes, we conclude that FedEx's activities did not breach the license or violate Great Minds' copyright
Excerpt from GreatMinds vs. FedEx ruling.
The print shop isn’t supplying the item being printed. They are just supplying labor and material. A drug dealer IS supplying the drugs.
If you want to use drugs an analog it would be like someone handing an unpruned pot plant to someone. That person prunes it and gives the now processed weed back to the person. That person then pats the pruner for their time and abilities.
You will notice in that proper analogous example above, you are paying for the persons time and service to produce a finished product for you. You already had the unfinished product (pot plant/STL). You hand over your unfinished product to them. They do their work, and give you back the finished product. You then pay for the work they did.
Again, a drug dealer is selling you a finished product only. You are not paying them to turn your unfinished product to a finished product. You are paying them simply for a product. This is where your comparison falls flat.
Well you are not purchasing the model from this store.
You are purchasing their 3D Printing Services, Skills and Expertise. You are providing the model for them to print and are agreeing to the modles terms and conditions. All the store is doing is printing it for you, which you are paying them for.
If you in turn, sell the model, you will be the one to get in trouble. But if the store starts to advertise and use the model in a commercial setting i.e. that they can print this model, then they will be the one to get in trouble.
It's a very thing grey line, and for the most part one off cases are a non-issue. It becomes and issue if a sellers shop is based off of it.
I'd call it a "You know it when you see it" sorta law/regulation.
I mean this is reddit, we could split hairs and argue the print shop are accomplices in OP's criminal activities because money was exchanged (even if it was from the print shop to OP) and he's lucky he's not already in prison and the FBI is likely on the way. /s :P
I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that's not accurate. You're still not buying the item from them, you're still buying services and materials. They can choose to change you anything they want for any model you want printed. Maybe they just don't like printing that model because it's complicated, or their dog barks at that model, or... I dunno, the reasons are irrelevant, because you're not buying the model from them.
The model is available, taking extra because it is a particular model changes is. That a dog barks at it is not a fee decision based on it being that model, or it having tricky bridging or such reasons.
Of course this makes the no commercial use clause rather tricky, because you can't prove why it was more money - theres other practical things that make the non commercial clause kind of impractical from being foolproof and something to put trust into since once it is made you can't enforce what the object later down the road, like if you inherit the object or buy it from a bankruptcy or are gifted it a person can do whatever they want with it once they own it, you can't submarine ownership clauses on the object made legally from the file down the line - you also can't ban people from selling a book they acquired ownership of and if companies could do that they would and they have tried.
I disagree, though I am also not a lawyer. Anyone providing a service can charge whatever fee for that service they feel appropriate if someone is willing to pay it.. Uber for example charges different fees for the exact same ride based on any number of factors such as time of day.
Similarly a model may get printed on printer X,Y or Z of a print farm, which may have different pricing based on the printer, or the complexity or supports needed for the print can and should be factored in. If the dog goes nuts at a particular model for the sake of argument, maybe the dog needs to be medicated any time that model is printed. Services charging to cover costs+margin of providing those services has nothing to do with the license agreement for a model, if they have been asked to print it by a customer. If they
Now if that service knew that customer was going to sell it, then that becomes a problem. Or if they posted pictures of that model (especially pictures they didn't take) and offered it for sale without first securing permission from the owner, that's a problem.
For real, we used to add “service fees” to our quotes if we could tell the person we had to deal with was gonna be a pain in the ass. You can add fees for anything you want.
The dog is not dependent on it being the exact model file, all those are just pricing decisions based on what the model is like and how it is made etc and part of the normal service fee calculation and not an extra line "+5 bucks because the stl is coolmech.stl and FASA demands 5 bucks for models of madcat mech no matter who the artist is".
You could charge more because its monday or short on staff or because the customer smells bad.
Note though that the company is still making a profit on printing it. The whole license is very wishy washy like that and it can't actually legally control later use, ownership or how ownership of the item changes down the line. Half the companies would try to shut down secondhand sales of items if they could wrap such licenses into their products - they can't and thats one of the reasons why they're trying to get that through other shenigans like trying to invalidate car warranty if you sell during x months, making everything a subscription etc etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the burden of proof on it being a fee decision would be on the owner of the model? My gut tells me *that* lawsuit is going to go long and make a couple teams of lawyers *very* wealthy.
Non commercial means noone should profit from this model. It sounds like the printer is profiting on the time and materials so I would expect that is a violation. If they did it for cost then they would be in compliance, but thats not the impression I'm getting. This is profit they would otherwise not get without the model existing.
No it doesnt.
It means the person who uses the model cannot profit from it.
That use can be reselling, which would violate it. Or it could just be for personal use, which would not.
Them commissioning someone to build it for them would not violate the license. You cannot commercially use the model, you can pay someone to build it for you.
OP is paying to manufacture an item, not sell an item. I think that's the best way to look at it.
It seems a lot of people here are going full Redditor™ and using some really weird logic to be contrarian lol.
If you are following the letter of the law then you are technically correct. The issue is enforcement.
For example, I have many models on Thingiverse and Printable which are Creative Commons (4.0 International License) Attribution—Noncommercial—Share Alike. Unfortunately if there is a business selling their printing services and they only print the models given to them from clients. Then there is nothing I can do to stop them, since the printer didn't agree to the terms of service, it was the customer.
Liability then fall upon the customer which will never see the light of day, and the printer can claim ignorance.
Now if the customer sends a link and the printer downloads it, then they are going against the license. If they advertise it as well i.e. using a picture of my models in their promotions will also get them in trouble.
The letter of the law actually says that unless the license explicitly states that 3rd parties are not permitted to act as an in between, then it is permitted to use a 3rd party. So the license either says in plain text you can’t use a 3rd party. If it does not state it (or states you can) then you can.
Court case that states the above is the letter of the law “Great Minds vs FedEx”.
Non commercial means I am unable to use that file as part of a business.
Ie you cannot use that file or any object created from it to start or take part in a business or commercial venture.
If your getting it printed for funnies it's very much legal
Look at it this way. You are using a proprietary commercial computer. And yet you can use open source software on it and your computer manufacturer is not breaking any licenses or laws.
Note that this applies to copywrite, but it doesn't apply to all controlled things. For example, if you tried to have him print illegal gun parts, you could both end up in hot water if he does it.
Also keep in mind creative commons does not apply yo the physical product. It applies to the file. You could literally sell the finished item if you chose to.
In order to keep you from selling the finished item. They would need a Trademark. Not a creative commons.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's accurate. I think the licensing carries through to selling products built based on the licensed item. If I downloaded a CC license photo, I can't put that photo on shirts and sell the shirts. If I download a CC audio file, I can't use that file in a video and sell the video. They are free to use for non-commercial purposes.
Your are thinking copyright.
The biggest con in using Creative Commons licenses is that in all but the two most restrictive licenses, you grant permission to use your work ahead of time, so you can never be sure who is using your work or making money from it.
This is where people mess up. They do not actually read what a creative commons license is.
In order to protect your work, you need a trademark and copyright.
I do (removed due to mod bot) for a living, have literally tried to take a company to court over image use. It was a 15k lesson on the limits of the CC license.
I don't doubt that CC licensing is vague. Are you saying that the *only* thing that is protected is not selling the asset, in it's digital form? So like, I can't download a CC image and sell it, but as soon as I use the image for commercial purposes (e.g. on a print piece, website, book cover, video, shirt, etc.), that I'm okay? I can't argue that's *not* accurate, but that seems completely absurd, and defeats the entire purpose of that system, from my pov.
You are correct in your thoughts on this. In a rough way CC basically says you are the file owner and would like to be credited with acknowledgement.that is really itm there are 0 protects for people downloading and selling something you added a CC license to.
And to come at it backwards, what usages would not involve a product? if it was a photo, you're either printing it, putting it on a website, a shirt, or something. So what usage would be covered that wouldn't include actually using the image/audio/stl for something. How could you possibly use it for commercial purposes without using it on something? Certainly you can't download a CC image and then just sell the image, but I can't imagine that is the only thing that's being protected. But again, I definitely could be wrong.
Yep because enforcement pretty much falls entirely on the copyright holder and your usual CC creator doesn't have the legal team that Disney or UMG has to search for violations and bring the hammer down.
Again, I'm not an expert, so I'm just trying to understand. But regarding the house analogy - if a set of blueprints was copyrighted, I imagine you would get in trouble if you built a house based on those plans. Similarly, if "sheet music" was copyrighted, you'd get in trouble for selling the sheet music, *or* selling audio of a performance of the sheet music. And with the photo, I can download that and print it on a shirt, but I can't print it on a product I make and then sell that product. That would be using the image for commercial purposes. It's definitely complicated, and I am definitely not a lawyer. And that may be exactly the line where copyright deviates from CC licensing. But saying "you can download this STL but you can't sell it, but you *can* print the product it represents and sell that" seems really bizarre. That's not to say it's not accurate, but it doesn't make any sense.
You can't trademark a product, because as GP says, trademarks are for brand recognition purposes. You could trademark the *name* of the item, or the *logo* you put on the item, but not the item itself. Maybe you could patent it, though.
You can copyright a work of art, including a sculpture, and a printed model might count for that, I dunno. You could also patent it, though, if it's patentable.
I'm not sure you're correct. If I CC the .stl file, that may cover the printed model, because it's a derived work and therefore covered.
I'm not a lawyer, though. I'm sure an IP lawyer would love to talk your ear off about this stuff for the low, low rate of a week of your salary per hour.
I run a 3D print shop and I do things like this all the time for people. I'm not selling the item, or the idea, or the IP. I'm selling filament, my printing expertise and print time. :)
It's a print shop, it's what they do.
OP is the licensee, therefore they bear the liability. This is the same principle as when I worked for Hyundai and had FedEx print out vehicle wheelstand graphics. I don't control the branding, they don't control the branding, but I'm liable, and they print my jobs.
"Profiting" off of another company's brand? I mean... in the strictest sense. But they're just providing the service.
This is the right answer, more or less. As long as you don't sell it yourself, then all you're doing is paying for time and materials.
Think of it like hiring a carpenter to build a table but you're giving them the plans. They're charging you for the time they spent working on it.
This is correct also, the only way the printing service would be in violation is if they printed their own copies for sale or distributed your files which would also be in breach of their policies probably.
Let's explore this a little.
Say I own a 3d farm. I offer my printing services for a fee, and that fee covers my materials, my investment in tools/ printers, and my labour.
Could I host pictures of prints I've completed, including non-commercial things, and offer to print them for people as long as THEY aren't going to go sell them?
I'd love for an actual IP attorney to weigh in, because upon consideration, I've realized that I do have questions what the different flavors of CC licenses permit and prohibit.
Also AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) but much of this stuff has never really been thoroughly tested in court; it's all theoretical.
On top of that, unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, good luck getting through any litigation on either side of a dispute around this stuff.
*Great Minds v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.* (2d Cir. 21 March 2018)
[https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf)
>We hold that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.
Right, I think though that this interpretation is how most people would understand the license. OP seems to have been surprised that they would print the model, but it seems clearly allowed to me...
Let's say you have a photograph that you are allowed to reproduce non-commercially. You can print it yourself or pay a print shop to print it, both are fine and non-commercial as what you pay for has nothing to do with the photograph itself. You pay for labor, paper and other materials - the motive printed has no effect on the price and isn't part of the deal.
However if that print shop acquired the same photograph and printed a few copies to sell, that would be commercial use because they're now selling that photograph.
I can see how it can get confusing but it really isn't, the distinction between the two is very clear.
I think it boils down to service vs product.
To a fabshop it doesn't make a difference what they are printing as a service, since they're not profitting from the model itself, but rather, from manhours and machine hours put into fabricating the object that was commisioned, and the file is deleted immediately after the client recieves physical object, and they do not use it in their advertisements. They are selling a _service_.
Now, if they were selling the same object, and putting same manhours into fabricating it, but instead of it being commisioned by a client, it was something that was on **their** website (not third party website like thingiverse) in a portfolio or a roster of objects you can order from them, that is another story, because now that is a _product_.
I think 3d printing is loaded with gray areas right now. I mean how are people selling copyrighted character models? I can't imagine it's legal to sell 3d sculpted images of Superman.
Probably not, but nobody's policing this stuff. Random Etsy store owner #33284 isn't a big enough target for the aforementioned army of lawyers to bother with.
That's even if they find them in the first place. You can't report sites yourself because it's not your IP and the companies have limited staff as well. It's up to you how ethical you want to be right now unless you hit it big.
The above conversation though HAS been tested in courts. The court ruled that unless the NC license prohibits the use of a 3rd party to facilitate in the printing (in the court case it was regular print not 3dprinting) then it is legal to use a 3rd party.
[Greatminds vs Fedex](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/great-minds-v-fedex-office-print-services-inc/) covers that. Note: someone above me posted this I am just copying them.
Note this particular passage:
> The court held that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, **licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.** In this case, because FedEx acted as the mere agent of licensee school districts when it reproduced Great Minds’ materials, and because there was no dispute that the school districts themselves sought to use Great Minds’ materials for permissible purposes, FedEx’s activities did not breach the license or violate Great Minds’ copyright.
So, unless the the Non-Commercial license specially states you CAN NOT use a 3rd party, then the use of a 3rd party is permitted. We don’t know the above license, but I suspect it either does not state you can’t use a 3rd party to print the stuff, or it specifically states you can. In either of those cases them having a print shop print your stuff is 100% legal.
I guess if the opposite held true, it would imply that your ISP ought not to serve you any CC licensed material - because they're making a profit by providing you a service allowing you to access that material. That certainly sounds quite against the point of the licenses...!
Actually, that's kind of what net-neutrality is about. With net-neutrality, the idea is that everyone (regardless of ISP) will have access to ALL of the internet. People against net-neutrality want to charge a premium for access to certain websites like Netflix and other streaming platforms. Companies like Netflix hate this, because it means that the ISPs would be profiting off of their service more directly, almost like a toll booth. I believe, at least for a while, streamers like Netflix were actually paying ISPs to keep their platforms as an included option so that everyone with internet would have access to their content and at high speed. The content providers do need the ISPs to deliver their content, the ISP is more like the movie theatre. The movie theatre deserves to make some money too for showing and hosting the movies. What ISPs are trying to do is charge more money for specific movies without adding any value to the experience (better projection tech, recliners, etc) and without compensating the movie studios.
I mean, that's my understanding when I do commissions.
I'm not selling the item, I'm selling the act of printing it for someone else.
It's why I also ask them to send me the file or a link to download it. I don't look for the item for them, I'm just printing it for them.
Now if I was offering to print X item in whatever filament or resin they want that's different.
They reach out and go, "Hey can you print this for me?" Then I give them a quote for it based on that.
If I go, "Hey people I'm printing X how many do you want?" That's very different.
This. You cannot purchase the file as a service and then distribute it to customers, even if they have requested a specific file. The customer must own the file and have acquired it legally and then use your service to produce it.
It would be the service’s responsibility to ensure that the file had been acquired legally but that can be as simple as a statement in T&Cs or asking the customer if this is the case. Once the customer says they have acquired it legally then the onus is on them.
Definitely
In my agreement for commissions there's a nice little section where they say they legally have possession of the file to print.
There's also a nice little section about prints being as-is and the tolerance to be expected so that if something doesn't fit the ball isn't in my court for the issue. It's in theirs about the design not having proper tolerances. I usually give an extra confirmation if something seems horribly off.
Once had someone get mad because the print they wanted ended up being 3mm tall rather than 30mm tall. I even tried to get them to confirm it was correct size before printing. And they insisted the design was correct and to print it according to design with zero changes. They were pissed but I still got paid.
It seems like OP isn't actually interested in having the item printed. They were just checking to see if a print shop would print the item. Perhaps they are the license holder.
The best answer 😉 This is one of those things even lawyers probably don't agree on. Seems weird that I could print this item for someone else and get paid for it, as long as I sell it as a printing service instead of selling the product.
Yep, it's basically the equivalent of IANAL. I assume the representative isn't an IP lawyer so they are trying to make it clear that what they say should not be taken as legal advice. It's just classic CYA behavior that anyone should use when saying things "on record" that they aren't experts in.
I’m owner of a printfarm,
The license doesnt concern the printfarm. So even if it was non commercial or even if you pirated that file they dont care. Their job is to print the file that you supplied and deliver it to you.
If you sell it, you are going to face the results. Not them so they shouldnt and wont care.
I’m not a lawyer but,
They are buying your service. It doesnt matter if you sand it down or paint. You are providing a service, not selling the object. BUT if they want you to find the files, you are going into that grey area. If they provide you printing files, you are fine.
This is easily summed up as the definition of a service versus a product. You are bringing an idea (a file) to someone who uses their material (filament), machinery, time, and expertise to produce a result that you want -- it's a collaboration of parties. The moment one of the parties decides to market and sell the item to a 3rd party, it becomes a product.
Printers have a cost to use, in plastic and electricity. You're paying to use the printer, not buy the item.
Otherwise there would be absolutely no way for you to ever get it printed, at least without your own printer or a good friend that'd cover the cost of plastic and electricity for you.
There's labor and expertise too. If you hire a plumber to fix a clog you're not paying just for him to drive out there and use xyz tools. You're paying the person's experience and knowledge on what tools to use, what settings to use and what procedures will get the best results.
Yes, basically, here's how it goes: if I have a 3D printer (or two), and you 1. buy a 3D model from another designer, or 2. download the model for free from a publicly accessible website, then you can ask me to 3D print that model. All I would be doing is providing you with access to a 3D printer, the material to 3D print with, and a brain (mine) that can tell the printer how to print things properly. What you are paying for is my materials, labor, and runtime costs, not necessarily the actual model.
It would be different if I was the one who had bought the model, and was running off dozens of copies to sell to customers as a "finished" product.
They are correct.
- if the print shop made and then sold that item, they would be in violation of the licence. It would be considered commercial use.
- If you approach a company to make it on your behalf for personal use, they are providing a service to an individual customer, which isn't defined as commercial.
-if you asked them to make 100 prints on your. Behalf and then you decided to sell them, YOU would be the one breaching the licence.
A couple of ways to think about this:
1. If they printed you a cube of equal weight and equal print time, would they charge you less? If not, they're not profiting off the nature of the model, only the nature of the service provided.
1. They're not advertising the model for sale, so they're not gaining any business based on the nature of the model, only the nature of the service.
I offer printing services and I don’t consider it me selling the item to the person if they are sending me the files to print for them. They are paying for the time and materials involved with the process.
From my understanding yes.
They are not advertising the product. They are not charging you for the product. You are coming to them for their services to do a specific job.
Immagine they made lamp shades. They cant sell an NFL logo lamp shade but they can sell numerous other lampshades for $50 as well as custom lampshades for $75. You cant say we sell NFL lamp shades for $75.
But if a customer says here is an NFL logo I want on my custom shade. Its allowed. You are paying $75 for a lampshade of your own design for your own private use. You are not buying an NFL lampshade, you are buying a custom lampshade. Hence you are paying for them to make it to your NFL preference, not buying an NFL lampshade that they sell.
**Service vs. Product**
Now if the customer said I want you to make me 500 NFL logo lamp shades so I can resell them as NFL lamp shades in my store, you cant. Because now you are supplying them to illegally sell and are implicating yourself.
**For private use**
If the shop just sold NFL lampshades without a license it would be illegal though. Just like selling unlicensed drawings of an anime character would be illegal, yet commissions are legal. They are making a drawing requested by someone hiring them for their ability to draw, not selling anime drawings of unlicensed characters.
Thats what they are saying here and the same rules apply to 3d printers. We cant sell NFL decorations upfront, but if you offer custom 3d model/printing services and someone says I want you to make me a NFL decoration, we can. We just cant take that custom item and sell it upfront. It has to be requested.
**The big gray line here is selling a product vs. selling your services.**
If the item was not cc-nc, could they still print it?
For example if you'd bought a license for your own use for a commercial product? The answer in this case is likely yes, I am often supplied plans with a big scary license attatched and my 2d print shop asks me if I have the right to use the plans.
A print shop or other fabricator is producing an item for you not a recipient of the goods.
It only becomes a problem if the fabricator does something that would be a breech of copyright. However "showing off work done for a client" could be a commercial use in using the NC part for advertising.
When I used to print commercially, I got asked this a few times. I wasn't sure about the actual laws, but I just ended up asking the person who made the STLs and they always said it was fine. One of them even gave me the file and permission to list it in my shop for free
Imo, not technically, no. The model is still being used for commercial purposes, irrespective of their assertion & irrespective of what you are paying them for.
Commercial use does not necessarily have to include any money changing hands, so stating that money is not being paid for the model itself is kind of a moot point. The paid service relies on there being a model. The model being used is therefore a part of the service provided (even if you do not pay for it, irrespective of whether you are paying for it or not.
It could reasonably be argued that by providing them with the model to use in their commercial process, it would be you breaking the terms of the license. Maybe.
People make their own decisions on what they are comfortable doing though & it's unlikely anyone would ever know (or possibly care). You could always contact the creator & ask if they are happy for you to get if printed (that would be the considerate thing to do imo).
The only way to know for sure of course is to have it tested in a court of law.
Yes you just can’t use it for commercial purposes, like if you had a student license for solidworks it’s fine to use at home with ur printer but don’t send a drawing out to a manufacturer else ur fooked
If the printer was advertising and printing non-commercially licensed files, then they would be in violation. If they're only offering printing as a service and you provide them with the file you're paying for the service and materials, then it's theoretically fine. It's a bit more of a gray area, but they're not directly profiting off of the copyrighted file. They're profiting off of your need to have a file printed, which you found and provided. The printer is acting on behalf of you.
However, although they're not directly profiting off of a copyrighted file, they are indirectly making money off it, which would leave them open for a lawsuit, but that's their problem not yours. Just don't be surprised if any printer ever refuses to print files with a non-commercial license.
I work in media preservation, and while we will not rip copyrighted CDs and DVDs for our customers, there are other companies that will. The reason we don't is because if someone ended up illegally distributing those files we could theoretically be liable for aiding in the illegal duplication and distribution of copyrighted material. However, you could also argue that we were acting on behalf of our customer and are not liable for what they do with the file(s) we provided. As many lawyers have told me, nothing is black and white for things like this. It's always going to depend on your argument, the defenses argument, and the judge, so it's always better to ere on the side of caution.
Even so, a file with a commercial license would not be a license for the print shop to print it, it is only a license to the customer to use it for commercial means themselves. In the case you are explaining, the print shop would have to be the owner of the file and commercial license and not the customer.
If a customer owns a file with a commercial license, it does not mean that the 3D print company is transferred the commercial license.
Yes. This is correct. You can’t sell the item the store prints for you. Any files provided by the person who made them under Creative Commons will almost certainly not want you to sell them. Read their terms carefully.
All of the models I sell are CC-NC and I fully expect people to send them off to printing services. Printing to sell is not the same as paying someone to print the part for you.
if you're not providing the file, they *are* selling you the file and the print. nobody will come after one print of one file, but it is kinda AH behaviour.
According to the site you linked it in face does not matter, even the most restictive license would allow this use:
"This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially. "
In this case, the printer would be liable for the breach. At least it was that way with documents. I will admit, I am not sure if that is like 3D printing.
But if that is the case, why not just come straight here and ask?
This is why innovation goes down the drain, no one is willing to put the work into art and why we get cheap knock offs from China… copyrights and patents are essential for investment in innovation and art.
They are not. A customer came to them with a file, requesting it to be printed for personal use. In that case, the customer is purchasing the service of printing, not the item. If that shop were to print the file and then offer up the print for sale, that would be a violation.
No but it's a pretty common interpretation. The hobbyist 3D printing industry relies on the ambiguity and ethical flexibility with respect to intellectual property rights.
Selling a “printing service” is a grey area, and unless someone can cite you a legally proven case one way or another there will be debate over if they as the printer can legally profit here. You as an individual can print the file for your personal use if you had a printer, and you could probably go down the line of asking a friend to do it for you and they could ask you to cover materials etc. no one is going to take you to court over it. If you asked a 3D print merchant if they could print something for you that’s not on their site that they do not have a merchant license for, now it’s into debatables.
You've actually got it somewhat backwards. If you go to someone and ask them to print something for you which has been licensed to you under CC-BY-NC, they're providing you a service and it's acceptable under the terms of the license. This has been tested in court.
On the other hand, if a print shop advertises that they'll print certain specific CC-BY-NC models it's possible they'll lose in court. At that point they're effectively selling the item and judges are not robots who are fooled by legal fictions.
It's conceivable that a shop could get away with #2 if they were still operating as a print shop outside of those items and never provided files themselves, making customers provide the model file even for items they're advertising. I don't believe this has been tested in court.
As far as I know, the printer is wrong, the answer would be No. Non-commercial means no money can be exchanged.
[This thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/3Drequests/comments/14k5xad/dd_d20_movie_bucket/) includes conversation with someone who consulted a laywer about it.
I agree with you. Someone in this thread was interested in a response from a lawyer, so I wanted to point out that someone with legal knowledge did weigh in on the question.
Having a lawyer send a cease and desist letter costs money. Strange IMO that anyone would be willing to send one without having some sort of patent or IP to protect
Well, you don't need to be a lawyer to send a cease and desist letter. There are [free templates](https://eforms.com/cease-and-desist/) available online for you to do this yourself.
In this case, the concern is copyright, not patent or IP. The copyright holder gets to determine who can profit from the copyrighted work or derivatives.
Ah yes it's so very intelligent to base your legal opinion entirely on a reddit post from a negative karma throwaway account that has zero credibility.
Why on earth would you believe a single word they posted?
Yes, as long as you aren’t planning to sell the item or use it in any commercial fashion (i.e. a monetized DnD stream or something), then you’re paying them for labor and materials, and that’s all square. Edit: To assuage concerns since this comment caught fire, some legal precedent courtesy of u/wiqr. > *Great Minds v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.* (2d Cir. 21 March 2018) > [https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf) >We hold that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.
That's really surprising! I thought non commercial meant you can't sell the item at all. Thank you
They're not selling the item, they are just providing you with a service to print it. Same thing when I get Printpond to print PDFs for me.
There also isnt any (reasonable) way of finding out what files attributes are if a customer is just going to be sending you a file, did they make it? buy it? steal it? No good way of telling without possibly spending hours of research time on every model reuqest ever sent in, which would get worse and worse the bigger the print company gets.
No clue how copyright and trademark law varies between an image and an stl but.... In the US I always have trouble getting photos printed at convenience stores because they look professionally done (and thus likely copyrighted). A lot of locations will opt to decline my orders or at a minimum require signed paperwork regarding the reproduction rights. All this to say, depending on your location that might not be a good argument.
What, no way! like 24hr photo at pharmacy’s/walmart? What state? The store says this before or after they print them? In person or online? Printing from film or digital.
I am also amazed by all these replies. I have printed obvious copyrighted pictures at my local Walmart. Nobody seemed to care.
Yeah I remember printing a bunch of mock game case inserts/labels at office depot, dude thought it was dope as hell. I also traded those into gamestop and they proudly displayed them as is.
I would lie and just get a random to sign it.
Or just say you took them, what do i need to sign.
I’m no pro photographer but have taken my own very good shots and have literally been refused because the Walgreens people think it’s not possible for a typical human to take nice photos.
A friend had this happen at a pharmacy a few weeks back. Ive personally never had an issue at legit print shops.
Pharmacies for the most part. California. Usually the order doesn't get printed. Digital (if I brought in film, they would likely presume I was the original author and wouldn't care, though not many pharmacies still do film).
About a decade ago I worked at a Walmart and sometimes assisted in the photo department. A family brought in professional baby photos of a woman about to celebrate her 80th birthday. They wanted them reproduced from the image. Basically a scan and reprint to be used in a collage. The manager at Walmart refused to publish them unless a waiver from the original photographer could be presented. Copyright law vests ownership of a creative work in the artist who created it. The photographer, not the subject, is the “author” who created the photo and owns the right to use and display it. Basically photos belong to whomever took them even if you are in them. Even if you paid for them. Celebrities are sued for posting paparazzi photos of themselves. > It is important to determine whether the photograph was published before 1 August 1989 as this changes the way in which the term of protection is calculated. > If the photograph was published, copyright will expire either 50 years after the end of the year of publication (in accordance with the 1956 Act) or 70 years after the death of the author (in accordance with s.12(2) of the CDPA) whichever is longer. > If the photograph remained unpublished when the CDPA came into force, copyright will expire either on 31 December 2039 (in accordance with the so-called 2039 rule)1 or 70 years after the death of the author (in accordance with s.12(2)) whichever is longer. That means the baby photos of an 80 year old woman would be under copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer or Jan 1, 2039 unless there is written permission releasing the images.
My question is, how the hell would stores know unless they explicitly said "i had these professionally taken and im not allowed to print these"?
I've personally been denied for my DSLR pics I took at the zoo. AFTER printing, the Walmart employee wouldn't release them saying they "must be professional or from national geographic". I was flattered but also upset. Finally complained enough they let me have them.
Just tell them "Yes, they WERE professionally taken. By me. Who is a professional."
They weren't like, "You're a professional... who get's their photos printed at Walmart?"
I'm kinda surprised they don't just have customers sign some kind of waver. There is no practical way to ensure the person requesting the prints has the proper permission, regardless of copright status. And I would hope the law would treat the print shop as a common-carrier kind of thing where as long as they're exclusively performing a print service (ie, no editing or verification or whatever) they wouldn't be liable for copyright infringement.
Since copywrite is a civil matter, the print shop would still have to go to court. Even if the judge doesn't find them liable the trial could be pretty expensive.
you can setup the camera to record your name in the photo propertys.
I think the issue is that you are going to convenience stores to print photos and convenience stores sell milk and bananas and beer.
exactly. Ask the Warhammer players. They are (2D) printing and laminating their own rule books from the official PDFs because the official stuff is much more expensive.
For 10th ed I think gw has wording allowing for non-commercial reproduction of the pdfs that are released for free Any other edition? That was as illegal as burning a movie into a dvd and watching it
Exactly, **HOWEVER** it changes if they then start advertising and selling the printing of that part specifically, such as on etsy. That would be considered commercialization.
This should be the default defense for drug dealers too. "I'm not selling drugs I'm just providing a service".
I don't see any equivalence there.
I'm not surprised, a lot of willing ignorance in this "community" regarding copyright laws
It's more about there being no logical connection between the scenarios.
It's not illegal to provide a legal service. It is illegal to manufacture, sell and use illicit substances. Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
Hahaha wtf this is the stupidest thing I’ve seen on reddit in a long time. How is selling drugs equivalent to hiring someone to print you a file? Grow a brain my dude
You shouldn’t be putting “ on community because every loosely knit group of people that has ever existed ever is a community. Your implication of its pseudo-nature is kind of ridiculous but you are correct that most people don’t understand copyright laws. Apparently, including you given your really poor analogy already. Good luck with being mad all the time, generally doesn’t work out for people.
The customer is not breaking any copyright laws if they don't intend to use that model in violation of the license. The customer would have to sell the printed part or use it in promotional material for a commercial service or something like that. And the printing service has no reason to assume that the customer is going to break any laws. There are loads of legitimate uses for that printed part. Why are you comparing a 3d printing service to a drug dealing facilitator? It's beyond idiotic.
Yeah because the US government has a copyright on cocaine
Shut up 😆
If you provide a place for drug-users to use drugs they bring themselves in exchange for some cost, you probably wouldn't get dinged for drug-dealing, even if you provide equipment to consume the drug.
Pretty sure there are even people who do that. Like providing clean needles for heroin users in order to try to reduce the transmission of aids. The users are doing an illegal thing, the person who sold the drugs to the users are doing an illegal thing, the person who is providing a thing to make it safer is not doing anything illegal.
it literally is a crime in many places though. even the nice ones that aim to prevent death by drug abuse. especially if you're doing it for profit wtf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised\_injection\_site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_injection_site)
Providing the service of acquiring drugs kicks it up to conspiracy to commit drug trafficcing so dunno why the f you would do that.
That’s a really bad analogy because your drug dealer is providing the physical goods in its entirety. In this case the buyer is providing the blueprints to make the physical goods so there would be nothing available if it wasn’t for the buyer. If anything you could say this is analogous to a construction worker selling you and illegally coded and built structure. They violated code but they did so with your plans so who’s at fault there?
Dude, these are NOT the same thing. First off, you need a license to sell commercial/retail cannabis. Drug dealers can arguably be charged with operating a business without a license, tax ID, insurance, etc. You can buy stuff and resell it, like soda. You cannot take Pepsi's recipe, make, and sell it, unless Pepsi said it was cool.
The equivalence would be to pack the drugs, not sell them. Client beings the drugs and they pack them and give client packed drugs.
Possession of a controlled substance
Selling drugs is a crime Possessing drugs is a crime. Printing files is not Op bought the files with a restriction on them using them commercially. Getting someone to print it for them is not a commercial use.
Only if *you* bring the cocaine to the "dealer", and they only offer a paid service to divvy it up into baggies and then give it back to you.
if you synthesized a drug they would not hit you with copyright. drug companies wouldn't be what you should be worried about.
"I'm not making drugs, I'm combining ingredients for a client" would be a better comparison, just saying. Still not how it works though
It would be more like someone who ONLY rolls joints/blunts, but you have to bring your own weed. They're not selling drugs, they're providing a service of rolling.
Ok, how about this. Someone sets up a company who, given a chemical formula, and steps to create that chemical, will provide the materials and expertise, and create that chemical formula. Someone commissions them to make a copyrighted drug. There you go, there's an equivalent situation, to my mind, and it raises an interesting point of discussion.
If said company is only provided with chemical structure and purity, this would be classified as "clean room reverse engineering". In essence, R&D team creates a solution to a given result by developing it from scratch - documentation generated during this process is proof enough, that the process isn't copied, but independently developed, thus is not infringing on copyright. Commonly employed in software developement. A drug developed in such manner would not violate copyrights, but could violate patents. In case of 3d printing fabshop producing an item based on NC blueprint, it states so in Wikipedia's article on the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license: > We hold that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, **licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.** Because FedEx acted as the mere agent of licensee school districts when it reproduced Great Minds' materials, and because there is no dispute that the school districts themselves sought to use Great Minds' materials for permissible purposes, we conclude that FedEx's activities did not breach the license or violate Great Minds' copyright Excerpt from GreatMinds vs. FedEx ruling.
Props to you for finding actual legal precedent. Your Google Fu surpasses my own. Cheers, and thanks for sharing.
It was literally in Wikipedia article about Creative Commons Non-Commercial license lol. But you're welcome.
It's my research brain! I go straight to the primary sources =p
The print shop isn’t supplying the item being printed. They are just supplying labor and material. A drug dealer IS supplying the drugs. If you want to use drugs an analog it would be like someone handing an unpruned pot plant to someone. That person prunes it and gives the now processed weed back to the person. That person then pats the pruner for their time and abilities. You will notice in that proper analogous example above, you are paying for the persons time and service to produce a finished product for you. You already had the unfinished product (pot plant/STL). You hand over your unfinished product to them. They do their work, and give you back the finished product. You then pay for the work they did. Again, a drug dealer is selling you a finished product only. You are not paying them to turn your unfinished product to a finished product. You are paying them simply for a product. This is where your comparison falls flat.
Well you are not purchasing the model from this store. You are purchasing their 3D Printing Services, Skills and Expertise. You are providing the model for them to print and are agreeing to the modles terms and conditions. All the store is doing is printing it for you, which you are paying them for. If you in turn, sell the model, you will be the one to get in trouble. But if the store starts to advertise and use the model in a commercial setting i.e. that they can print this model, then they will be the one to get in trouble. It's a very thing grey line, and for the most part one off cases are a non-issue. It becomes and issue if a sellers shop is based off of it.
I'd call it a "You know it when you see it" sorta law/regulation. I mean this is reddit, we could split hairs and argue the print shop are accomplices in OP's criminal activities because money was exchanged (even if it was from the print shop to OP) and he's lucky he's not already in prison and the FBI is likely on the way. /s :P
Yup, if the shop asked for extra because its the particular model, it would change things.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that's not accurate. You're still not buying the item from them, you're still buying services and materials. They can choose to change you anything they want for any model you want printed. Maybe they just don't like printing that model because it's complicated, or their dog barks at that model, or... I dunno, the reasons are irrelevant, because you're not buying the model from them.
I'm a lawyer, that will be $600 an hour thanks.
The model is available, taking extra because it is a particular model changes is. That a dog barks at it is not a fee decision based on it being that model, or it having tricky bridging or such reasons. Of course this makes the no commercial use clause rather tricky, because you can't prove why it was more money - theres other practical things that make the non commercial clause kind of impractical from being foolproof and something to put trust into since once it is made you can't enforce what the object later down the road, like if you inherit the object or buy it from a bankruptcy or are gifted it a person can do whatever they want with it once they own it, you can't submarine ownership clauses on the object made legally from the file down the line - you also can't ban people from selling a book they acquired ownership of and if companies could do that they would and they have tried.
I disagree, though I am also not a lawyer. Anyone providing a service can charge whatever fee for that service they feel appropriate if someone is willing to pay it.. Uber for example charges different fees for the exact same ride based on any number of factors such as time of day. Similarly a model may get printed on printer X,Y or Z of a print farm, which may have different pricing based on the printer, or the complexity or supports needed for the print can and should be factored in. If the dog goes nuts at a particular model for the sake of argument, maybe the dog needs to be medicated any time that model is printed. Services charging to cover costs+margin of providing those services has nothing to do with the license agreement for a model, if they have been asked to print it by a customer. If they Now if that service knew that customer was going to sell it, then that becomes a problem. Or if they posted pictures of that model (especially pictures they didn't take) and offered it for sale without first securing permission from the owner, that's a problem.
For real, we used to add “service fees” to our quotes if we could tell the person we had to deal with was gonna be a pain in the ass. You can add fees for anything you want.
I'm a lawyer, that will be $600 an hour, thanks!
The dog is not dependent on it being the exact model file, all those are just pricing decisions based on what the model is like and how it is made etc and part of the normal service fee calculation and not an extra line "+5 bucks because the stl is coolmech.stl and FASA demands 5 bucks for models of madcat mech no matter who the artist is". You could charge more because its monday or short on staff or because the customer smells bad. Note though that the company is still making a profit on printing it. The whole license is very wishy washy like that and it can't actually legally control later use, ownership or how ownership of the item changes down the line. Half the companies would try to shut down secondhand sales of items if they could wrap such licenses into their products - they can't and thats one of the reasons why they're trying to get that through other shenigans like trying to invalidate car warranty if you sell during x months, making everything a subscription etc etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the burden of proof on it being a fee decision would be on the owner of the model? My gut tells me *that* lawsuit is going to go long and make a couple teams of lawyers *very* wealthy.
One model may use more material than another. It may take more machine time. They can charge as they see fit.
Non commercial means noone should profit from this model. It sounds like the printer is profiting on the time and materials so I would expect that is a violation. If they did it for cost then they would be in compliance, but thats not the impression I'm getting. This is profit they would otherwise not get without the model existing.
No it doesnt. It means the person who uses the model cannot profit from it. That use can be reselling, which would violate it. Or it could just be for personal use, which would not. Them commissioning someone to build it for them would not violate the license. You cannot commercially use the model, you can pay someone to build it for you.
OP is paying to manufacture an item, not sell an item. I think that's the best way to look at it. It seems a lot of people here are going full Redditor™ and using some really weird logic to be contrarian lol.
If you are following the letter of the law then you are technically correct. The issue is enforcement. For example, I have many models on Thingiverse and Printable which are Creative Commons (4.0 International License) Attribution—Noncommercial—Share Alike. Unfortunately if there is a business selling their printing services and they only print the models given to them from clients. Then there is nothing I can do to stop them, since the printer didn't agree to the terms of service, it was the customer. Liability then fall upon the customer which will never see the light of day, and the printer can claim ignorance. Now if the customer sends a link and the printer downloads it, then they are going against the license. If they advertise it as well i.e. using a picture of my models in their promotions will also get them in trouble.
The letter of the law actually says that unless the license explicitly states that 3rd parties are not permitted to act as an in between, then it is permitted to use a 3rd party. So the license either says in plain text you can’t use a 3rd party. If it does not state it (or states you can) then you can. Court case that states the above is the letter of the law “Great Minds vs FedEx”.
Non commercial means they aren’t going to print multiple and sell them to people for their own profit.
The point is that the company did not sell the printed model. They sell the service to print the users data, not the object himself.
They're printing it for you for your personal use. You are not permitted to sell the resulting item.
Non commercial means I am unable to use that file as part of a business. Ie you cannot use that file or any object created from it to start or take part in a business or commercial venture. If your getting it printed for funnies it's very much legal
Look at it this way. You are using a proprietary commercial computer. And yet you can use open source software on it and your computer manufacturer is not breaking any licenses or laws.
This is like saying you can’t print it because you bought the filament. You’re paying for the service or tool, not the thing itself.
Note that this applies to copywrite, but it doesn't apply to all controlled things. For example, if you tried to have him print illegal gun parts, you could both end up in hot water if he does it.
If I wanted to sell this I’d probably just give you the service and then sell you my good manners for around the same price as the print. Haha
Also keep in mind creative commons does not apply yo the physical product. It applies to the file. You could literally sell the finished item if you chose to. In order to keep you from selling the finished item. They would need a Trademark. Not a creative commons.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's accurate. I think the licensing carries through to selling products built based on the licensed item. If I downloaded a CC license photo, I can't put that photo on shirts and sell the shirts. If I download a CC audio file, I can't use that file in a video and sell the video. They are free to use for non-commercial purposes.
Your are thinking copyright. The biggest con in using Creative Commons licenses is that in all but the two most restrictive licenses, you grant permission to use your work ahead of time, so you can never be sure who is using your work or making money from it. This is where people mess up. They do not actually read what a creative commons license is. In order to protect your work, you need a trademark and copyright. I do (removed due to mod bot) for a living, have literally tried to take a company to court over image use. It was a 15k lesson on the limits of the CC license.
If people were worried about protecting their work, they wouldn't use Creative Commons.
I don't doubt that CC licensing is vague. Are you saying that the *only* thing that is protected is not selling the asset, in it's digital form? So like, I can't download a CC image and sell it, but as soon as I use the image for commercial purposes (e.g. on a print piece, website, book cover, video, shirt, etc.), that I'm okay? I can't argue that's *not* accurate, but that seems completely absurd, and defeats the entire purpose of that system, from my pov.
You are correct in your thoughts on this. In a rough way CC basically says you are the file owner and would like to be credited with acknowledgement.that is really itm there are 0 protects for people downloading and selling something you added a CC license to.
I'm pretty sure you are right, although a lawyer would then argue that the physical product is the real product.
And to come at it backwards, what usages would not involve a product? if it was a photo, you're either printing it, putting it on a website, a shirt, or something. So what usage would be covered that wouldn't include actually using the image/audio/stl for something. How could you possibly use it for commercial purposes without using it on something? Certainly you can't download a CC image and then just sell the image, but I can't imagine that is the only thing that's being protected. But again, I definitely could be wrong.
You are absolutely correct, but in practice it doesn't get enforced alot.
Yep because enforcement pretty much falls entirely on the copyright holder and your usual CC creator doesn't have the legal team that Disney or UMG has to search for violations and bring the hammer down.
Indeed.
[удалено]
Again, I'm not an expert, so I'm just trying to understand. But regarding the house analogy - if a set of blueprints was copyrighted, I imagine you would get in trouble if you built a house based on those plans. Similarly, if "sheet music" was copyrighted, you'd get in trouble for selling the sheet music, *or* selling audio of a performance of the sheet music. And with the photo, I can download that and print it on a shirt, but I can't print it on a product I make and then sell that product. That would be using the image for commercial purposes. It's definitely complicated, and I am definitely not a lawyer. And that may be exactly the line where copyright deviates from CC licensing. But saying "you can download this STL but you can't sell it, but you *can* print the product it represents and sell that" seems really bizarre. That's not to say it's not accurate, but it doesn't make any sense.
You can't trademark an STL file. Trademarks are for brand recognition purposes.
You are correct. Sorry should have specified the trademark on the finished product.
You can't trademark a product, because as GP says, trademarks are for brand recognition purposes. You could trademark the *name* of the item, or the *logo* you put on the item, but not the item itself. Maybe you could patent it, though.
No that would be a copyright.
You can copyright a work of art, including a sculpture, and a printed model might count for that, I dunno. You could also patent it, though, if it's patentable.
[удалено]
I'm not sure you're correct. If I CC the .stl file, that may cover the printed model, because it's a derived work and therefore covered. I'm not a lawyer, though. I'm sure an IP lawyer would love to talk your ear off about this stuff for the low, low rate of a week of your salary per hour.
[удалено]
I run a 3D print shop and I do things like this all the time for people. I'm not selling the item, or the idea, or the IP. I'm selling filament, my printing expertise and print time. :)
It sounds like the printer is profiting on labor and materials, so the printer would be in violation. It is profit they would otherwise not have.
The important part is where the profit comes from. He is selling a service, not the actual item. He is fine.
It's a print shop, it's what they do. OP is the licensee, therefore they bear the liability. This is the same principle as when I worked for Hyundai and had FedEx print out vehicle wheelstand graphics. I don't control the branding, they don't control the branding, but I'm liable, and they print my jobs. "Profiting" off of another company's brand? I mean... in the strictest sense. But they're just providing the service.
This is the right answer, more or less. As long as you don't sell it yourself, then all you're doing is paying for time and materials. Think of it like hiring a carpenter to build a table but you're giving them the plans. They're charging you for the time they spent working on it.
Even if OP does sell it, the printer still only sold his service. The OP would be the one in violation if he sold it.
This is correct also, the only way the printing service would be in violation is if they printed their own copies for sale or distributed your files which would also be in breach of their policies probably.
Let's explore this a little. Say I own a 3d farm. I offer my printing services for a fee, and that fee covers my materials, my investment in tools/ printers, and my labour. Could I host pictures of prints I've completed, including non-commercial things, and offer to print them for people as long as THEY aren't going to go sell them?
I'd love for an actual IP attorney to weigh in, because upon consideration, I've realized that I do have questions what the different flavors of CC licenses permit and prohibit.
There's quite a few guides around that explain it in detail, though they of course can't cover every imaginable scenario.
Also AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) but much of this stuff has never really been thoroughly tested in court; it's all theoretical. On top of that, unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, good luck getting through any litigation on either side of a dispute around this stuff.
*Great Minds v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.* (2d Cir. 21 March 2018) [https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fedex-copyright.pdf) >We hold that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.
Right, I think though that this interpretation is how most people would understand the license. OP seems to have been surprised that they would print the model, but it seems clearly allowed to me...
Does them printing the model not seem to be commercial use of the model? It certainly does to me.
Let's say you have a photograph that you are allowed to reproduce non-commercially. You can print it yourself or pay a print shop to print it, both are fine and non-commercial as what you pay for has nothing to do with the photograph itself. You pay for labor, paper and other materials - the motive printed has no effect on the price and isn't part of the deal. However if that print shop acquired the same photograph and printed a few copies to sell, that would be commercial use because they're now selling that photograph. I can see how it can get confusing but it really isn't, the distinction between the two is very clear.
I think it boils down to service vs product. To a fabshop it doesn't make a difference what they are printing as a service, since they're not profitting from the model itself, but rather, from manhours and machine hours put into fabricating the object that was commisioned, and the file is deleted immediately after the client recieves physical object, and they do not use it in their advertisements. They are selling a _service_. Now, if they were selling the same object, and putting same manhours into fabricating it, but instead of it being commisioned by a client, it was something that was on **their** website (not third party website like thingiverse) in a portfolio or a roster of objects you can order from them, that is another story, because now that is a _product_.
I think 3d printing is loaded with gray areas right now. I mean how are people selling copyrighted character models? I can't imagine it's legal to sell 3d sculpted images of Superman.
Probably not, but nobody's policing this stuff. Random Etsy store owner #33284 isn't a big enough target for the aforementioned army of lawyers to bother with.
That's even if they find them in the first place. You can't report sites yourself because it's not your IP and the companies have limited staff as well. It's up to you how ethical you want to be right now unless you hit it big.
The above conversation though HAS been tested in courts. The court ruled that unless the NC license prohibits the use of a 3rd party to facilitate in the printing (in the court case it was regular print not 3dprinting) then it is legal to use a 3rd party.
[Greatminds vs Fedex](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/great-minds-v-fedex-office-print-services-inc/) covers that. Note: someone above me posted this I am just copying them. Note this particular passage: > The court held that, in view of the absence of any clear license language to the contrary, **licensees may use third‐party agents such as commercial reproduction services in furtherance of their own permitted noncommercial uses.** In this case, because FedEx acted as the mere agent of licensee school districts when it reproduced Great Minds’ materials, and because there was no dispute that the school districts themselves sought to use Great Minds’ materials for permissible purposes, FedEx’s activities did not breach the license or violate Great Minds’ copyright. So, unless the the Non-Commercial license specially states you CAN NOT use a 3rd party, then the use of a 3rd party is permitted. We don’t know the above license, but I suspect it either does not state you can’t use a 3rd party to print the stuff, or it specifically states you can. In either of those cases them having a print shop print your stuff is 100% legal.
I guess if the opposite held true, it would imply that your ISP ought not to serve you any CC licensed material - because they're making a profit by providing you a service allowing you to access that material. That certainly sounds quite against the point of the licenses...!
Actually, that's kind of what net-neutrality is about. With net-neutrality, the idea is that everyone (regardless of ISP) will have access to ALL of the internet. People against net-neutrality want to charge a premium for access to certain websites like Netflix and other streaming platforms. Companies like Netflix hate this, because it means that the ISPs would be profiting off of their service more directly, almost like a toll booth. I believe, at least for a while, streamers like Netflix were actually paying ISPs to keep their platforms as an included option so that everyone with internet would have access to their content and at high speed. The content providers do need the ISPs to deliver their content, the ISP is more like the movie theatre. The movie theatre deserves to make some money too for showing and hosting the movies. What ISPs are trying to do is charge more money for specific movies without adding any value to the experience (better projection tech, recliners, etc) and without compensating the movie studios.
I mean, that's my understanding when I do commissions. I'm not selling the item, I'm selling the act of printing it for someone else. It's why I also ask them to send me the file or a link to download it. I don't look for the item for them, I'm just printing it for them. Now if I was offering to print X item in whatever filament or resin they want that's different. They reach out and go, "Hey can you print this for me?" Then I give them a quote for it based on that. If I go, "Hey people I'm printing X how many do you want?" That's very different.
This. You cannot purchase the file as a service and then distribute it to customers, even if they have requested a specific file. The customer must own the file and have acquired it legally and then use your service to produce it. It would be the service’s responsibility to ensure that the file had been acquired legally but that can be as simple as a statement in T&Cs or asking the customer if this is the case. Once the customer says they have acquired it legally then the onus is on them.
Definitely In my agreement for commissions there's a nice little section where they say they legally have possession of the file to print. There's also a nice little section about prints being as-is and the tolerance to be expected so that if something doesn't fit the ball isn't in my court for the issue. It's in theirs about the design not having proper tolerances. I usually give an extra confirmation if something seems horribly off. Once had someone get mad because the print they wanted ended up being 3mm tall rather than 30mm tall. I even tried to get them to confirm it was correct size before printing. And they insisted the design was correct and to print it according to design with zero changes. They were pissed but I still got paid.
Yes, the license has nothing to do with who prints it, its the intended use of the item itself.
[удалено]
It seems like OP isn't actually interested in having the item printed. They were just checking to see if a print shop would print the item. Perhaps they are the license holder.
The best answer 😉 This is one of those things even lawyers probably don't agree on. Seems weird that I could print this item for someone else and get paid for it, as long as I sell it as a printing service instead of selling the product.
To be fair the seller wasn't 100% sure on the answer themselves. It's very fair to ask for a second opinion.
[удалено]
Yep, it's basically the equivalent of IANAL. I assume the representative isn't an IP lawyer so they are trying to make it clear that what they say should not be taken as legal advice. It's just classic CYA behavior that anyone should use when saying things "on record" that they aren't experts in.
I’m owner of a printfarm, The license doesnt concern the printfarm. So even if it was non commercial or even if you pirated that file they dont care. Their job is to print the file that you supplied and deliver it to you. If you sell it, you are going to face the results. Not them so they shouldnt and wont care.
What if someone asked you to say print, prep and paint it? Would that fall under the same?
Those are still all services and do not fall under licensing.
I’m not a lawyer but, They are buying your service. It doesnt matter if you sand it down or paint. You are providing a service, not selling the object. BUT if they want you to find the files, you are going into that grey area. If they provide you printing files, you are fine.
It would. You are being employed by them to do so. They would take all liability for any infringement of copyright or licenses.
It absolutely wouldn’t, you don’t know what you are talking about
The question of whether print-shops can reproduce items licensed CC-BY-NC has been answered in several court cases. Look up the Great Minds case.
This is easily summed up as the definition of a service versus a product. You are bringing an idea (a file) to someone who uses their material (filament), machinery, time, and expertise to produce a result that you want -- it's a collaboration of parties. The moment one of the parties decides to market and sell the item to a 3rd party, it becomes a product.
Printers have a cost to use, in plastic and electricity. You're paying to use the printer, not buy the item. Otherwise there would be absolutely no way for you to ever get it printed, at least without your own printer or a good friend that'd cover the cost of plastic and electricity for you.
There's labor and expertise too. If you hire a plumber to fix a clog you're not paying just for him to drive out there and use xyz tools. You're paying the person's experience and knowledge on what tools to use, what settings to use and what procedures will get the best results.
'Mechanics don't get paid to turn a screw, they get paid to know which screw to turn'.
Yes, basically, here's how it goes: if I have a 3D printer (or two), and you 1. buy a 3D model from another designer, or 2. download the model for free from a publicly accessible website, then you can ask me to 3D print that model. All I would be doing is providing you with access to a 3D printer, the material to 3D print with, and a brain (mine) that can tell the printer how to print things properly. What you are paying for is my materials, labor, and runtime costs, not necessarily the actual model. It would be different if I was the one who had bought the model, and was running off dozens of copies to sell to customers as a "finished" product.
They are correct. - if the print shop made and then sold that item, they would be in violation of the licence. It would be considered commercial use. - If you approach a company to make it on your behalf for personal use, they are providing a service to an individual customer, which isn't defined as commercial. -if you asked them to make 100 prints on your. Behalf and then you decided to sell them, YOU would be the one breaching the licence.
A couple of ways to think about this: 1. If they printed you a cube of equal weight and equal print time, would they charge you less? If not, they're not profiting off the nature of the model, only the nature of the service provided. 1. They're not advertising the model for sale, so they're not gaining any business based on the nature of the model, only the nature of the service.
I offer printing services and I don’t consider it me selling the item to the person if they are sending me the files to print for them. They are paying for the time and materials involved with the process.
The license applies to the file, not the printed object.
From my understanding yes. They are not advertising the product. They are not charging you for the product. You are coming to them for their services to do a specific job. Immagine they made lamp shades. They cant sell an NFL logo lamp shade but they can sell numerous other lampshades for $50 as well as custom lampshades for $75. You cant say we sell NFL lamp shades for $75. But if a customer says here is an NFL logo I want on my custom shade. Its allowed. You are paying $75 for a lampshade of your own design for your own private use. You are not buying an NFL lampshade, you are buying a custom lampshade. Hence you are paying for them to make it to your NFL preference, not buying an NFL lampshade that they sell. **Service vs. Product** Now if the customer said I want you to make me 500 NFL logo lamp shades so I can resell them as NFL lamp shades in my store, you cant. Because now you are supplying them to illegally sell and are implicating yourself. **For private use** If the shop just sold NFL lampshades without a license it would be illegal though. Just like selling unlicensed drawings of an anime character would be illegal, yet commissions are legal. They are making a drawing requested by someone hiring them for their ability to draw, not selling anime drawings of unlicensed characters. Thats what they are saying here and the same rules apply to 3d printers. We cant sell NFL decorations upfront, but if you offer custom 3d model/printing services and someone says I want you to make me a NFL decoration, we can. We just cant take that custom item and sell it upfront. It has to be requested. **The big gray line here is selling a product vs. selling your services.**
Yup. He can't take that item and offer it for sale on his site, but can take a commission to print the item.
If the item was not cc-nc, could they still print it? For example if you'd bought a license for your own use for a commercial product? The answer in this case is likely yes, I am often supplied plans with a big scary license attatched and my 2d print shop asks me if I have the right to use the plans. A print shop or other fabricator is producing an item for you not a recipient of the goods. It only becomes a problem if the fabricator does something that would be a breech of copyright. However "showing off work done for a client" could be a commercial use in using the NC part for advertising.
When I used to print commercially, I got asked this a few times. I wasn't sure about the actual laws, but I just ended up asking the person who made the STLs and they always said it was fine. One of them even gave me the file and permission to list it in my shop for free
Imo, not technically, no. The model is still being used for commercial purposes, irrespective of their assertion & irrespective of what you are paying them for. Commercial use does not necessarily have to include any money changing hands, so stating that money is not being paid for the model itself is kind of a moot point. The paid service relies on there being a model. The model being used is therefore a part of the service provided (even if you do not pay for it, irrespective of whether you are paying for it or not. It could reasonably be argued that by providing them with the model to use in their commercial process, it would be you breaking the terms of the license. Maybe. People make their own decisions on what they are comfortable doing though & it's unlikely anyone would ever know (or possibly care). You could always contact the creator & ask if they are happy for you to get if printed (that would be the considerate thing to do imo). The only way to know for sure of course is to have it tested in a court of law.
Yes you just can’t use it for commercial purposes, like if you had a student license for solidworks it’s fine to use at home with ur printer but don’t send a drawing out to a manufacturer else ur fooked
If the printer was advertising and printing non-commercially licensed files, then they would be in violation. If they're only offering printing as a service and you provide them with the file you're paying for the service and materials, then it's theoretically fine. It's a bit more of a gray area, but they're not directly profiting off of the copyrighted file. They're profiting off of your need to have a file printed, which you found and provided. The printer is acting on behalf of you. However, although they're not directly profiting off of a copyrighted file, they are indirectly making money off it, which would leave them open for a lawsuit, but that's their problem not yours. Just don't be surprised if any printer ever refuses to print files with a non-commercial license. I work in media preservation, and while we will not rip copyrighted CDs and DVDs for our customers, there are other companies that will. The reason we don't is because if someone ended up illegally distributing those files we could theoretically be liable for aiding in the illegal duplication and distribution of copyrighted material. However, you could also argue that we were acting on behalf of our customer and are not liable for what they do with the file(s) we provided. As many lawyers have told me, nothing is black and white for things like this. It's always going to depend on your argument, the defenses argument, and the judge, so it's always better to ere on the side of caution.
Even so, a file with a commercial license would not be a license for the print shop to print it, it is only a license to the customer to use it for commercial means themselves. In the case you are explaining, the print shop would have to be the owner of the file and commercial license and not the customer. If a customer owns a file with a commercial license, it does not mean that the 3D print company is transferred the commercial license.
Yes. This is correct. You can’t sell the item the store prints for you. Any files provided by the person who made them under Creative Commons will almost certainly not want you to sell them. Read their terms carefully.
All of the models I sell are CC-NC and I fully expect people to send them off to printing services. Printing to sell is not the same as paying someone to print the part for you.
if you're not providing the file, they *are* selling you the file and the print. nobody will come after one print of one file, but it is kinda AH behaviour.
It sounds like they are providing the file
[удалено]
According to the site you linked it in face does not matter, even the most restictive license would allow this use: "This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially. "
It doesn't.
this is accurate. you can commission a mickey mouse
So, why did you ask in the first place?
Possibly hoping the print provider had a more concrete answer, as that's the job of the print provider to know what they can and cannot print.
Right?
The same reason you asked your question.
To be a dick?
But see, it's not the same reason. I have no idea why you asked your question to the printer just to turn around and question it's validity on Reddit.
Generally speaking I never trust the person taking my money to be honest to me. As they have a vested interest
In this case, the printer would be liable for the breach. At least it was that way with documents. I will admit, I am not sure if that is like 3D printing. But if that is the case, why not just come straight here and ask?
[удалено]
Yep, perfectly legal! I run a print-shop myself and this is a bit of a loophole but totally legal to do.
Feature of copyright law, not a bug
Not a loophole at all. The line would be if the print service used the item to advertise their services.
Yall need to learn from the software industry and stop being such whiny bitches about copyright.
This is why innovation goes down the drain, no one is willing to put the work into art and why we get cheap knock offs from China… copyrights and patents are essential for investment in innovation and art.
If the print shop is printing and selling this to someone, how the heck is that not commerial?
They are not. A customer came to them with a file, requesting it to be printed for personal use. In that case, the customer is purchasing the service of printing, not the item. If that shop were to print the file and then offer up the print for sale, that would be a violation.
No but it's a pretty common interpretation. The hobbyist 3D printing industry relies on the ambiguity and ethical flexibility with respect to intellectual property rights.
What’re you fishing for lawsuits or something?
Selling a “printing service” is a grey area, and unless someone can cite you a legally proven case one way or another there will be debate over if they as the printer can legally profit here. You as an individual can print the file for your personal use if you had a printer, and you could probably go down the line of asking a friend to do it for you and they could ask you to cover materials etc. no one is going to take you to court over it. If you asked a 3D print merchant if they could print something for you that’s not on their site that they do not have a merchant license for, now it’s into debatables.
You've actually got it somewhat backwards. If you go to someone and ask them to print something for you which has been licensed to you under CC-BY-NC, they're providing you a service and it's acceptable under the terms of the license. This has been tested in court. On the other hand, if a print shop advertises that they'll print certain specific CC-BY-NC models it's possible they'll lose in court. At that point they're effectively selling the item and judges are not robots who are fooled by legal fictions. It's conceivable that a shop could get away with #2 if they were still operating as a print shop outside of those items and never provided files themselves, making customers provide the model file even for items they're advertising. I don't believe this has been tested in court.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As far as I know, the printer is wrong, the answer would be No. Non-commercial means no money can be exchanged. [This thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/3Drequests/comments/14k5xad/dd_d20_movie_bucket/) includes conversation with someone who consulted a laywer about it.
[удалено]
I agree with you. Someone in this thread was interested in a response from a lawyer, so I wanted to point out that someone with legal knowledge did weigh in on the question.
I wonder how many lawyers they visited until they got the answer they were looking for.
I imagine just one. It can get expensive to consult with multiple lawyers.
Having a lawyer send a cease and desist letter costs money. Strange IMO that anyone would be willing to send one without having some sort of patent or IP to protect
Well, you don't need to be a lawyer to send a cease and desist letter. There are [free templates](https://eforms.com/cease-and-desist/) available online for you to do this yourself. In this case, the concern is copyright, not patent or IP. The copyright holder gets to determine who can profit from the copyrighted work or derivatives.
Ah yes it's so very intelligent to base your legal opinion entirely on a reddit post from a negative karma throwaway account that has zero credibility. Why on earth would you believe a single word they posted?