Comments on: 3D printing's first copyright complaint goes away, but things are just getting started http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Fri, 24 May 2013 01:47:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: willmore http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1033253 willmore Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1033253 Yeah, I have to agree. Let's not conflate Copyright with Pattents. Yeah, I have to agree. Let’s not conflate Copyright with Pattents.

]]> By: Raines Cohen http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032488 Raines Cohen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032488 <blockquote> an interpretation of the underlying public domain work inspired by Schwanitz's design.</blockquote> I Believe adding a comma before inspired could help prevent this from being misread as saying that the public domain work was inspired by Schwanitz. The other lesson from this experience: if you have a correction to a blog post, make a comment and blog your own correction rather than waiting around for an email to get read an acted on.

an interpretation of the underlying public domain work inspired by Schwanitz’s design.

I Believe adding a comma before inspired could help prevent this from being misread as saying that the public domain work was inspired by Schwanitz.

The other lesson from this experience: if you have a correction to a blog post, make a comment and blog your own correction rather than waiting around for an email to get read an acted on.

]]> By: Bernel http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1043766 Bernel Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1043766 While this shape may be known as a Penrose Triangle, it was not invented by Roger Penrose but by the Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvärd two decades earlier. Just to clear up another misattribution. While this shape may be known as a Penrose Triangle, it was not invented by Roger Penrose but by the Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvärd two decades earlier. Just to clear up another misattribution.

]]> By: joris http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1033018 joris Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1033018 This Penrose triangle thing just got a new plot twist. It turns out that Magician Francis Tabary has been making aluminum 3D penrose triangles since 2004: http://www.francistabary.com/index.php?menu=detail_impossible&num=20 This Penrose triangle thing just got a new plot twist. It turns out that Magician Francis Tabary has been making aluminum 3D penrose triangles since 2004: http://www.francistabary.com/index.php?menu=detail_impossible&num=20

]]> By: willmore http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1033274 willmore Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1033274 Good spelling is, apparently, overrated. I blame my keyboard. Good spelling is, apparently, overrated. I blame my keyboard.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1045819 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1045819 Agree. Or maybe Cory needs one of those "Out of Office" replies be sent whenever he is offline for more than a half hour. Agree. Or maybe Cory needs one of those “Out of Office” replies be sent whenever he is offline for more than a half hour.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032774 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032774 If anyone wants to create their own variations on it, this program solves this entire class of impossible cube figures. http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6516 If anyone wants to create their own variations on it, this program solves this entire class of impossible cube figures.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6516

]]> By: das memsen http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032524 das memsen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032524 So can we drop the ridiculous concept of idea-ownership yet? Or do we have to wait a few more decades, first? So can we drop the ridiculous concept of idea-ownership yet? Or do we have to wait a few more decades, first?

]]> By: Chrs http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032531 Chrs Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032531 Let's just say I'm not worried about your last point anytime soon. Printing at the molecular level, easily? We're fifty years from that, at most optimistic. But yeah, I don't know exactly how this will work, but I strongly suspect that this will naturally flow into patent law where it belongs. Let’s just say I’m not worried about your last point anytime soon. Printing at the molecular level, easily? We’re fifty years from that, at most optimistic.

But yeah, I don’t know exactly how this will work, but I strongly suspect that this will naturally flow into patent law where it belongs.

]]> By: twak http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032533 twak Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032533 Procedural content is when you design a machine that creates something (a 3D model!). I wrote this a while back about some of the IP implications of this technology. http://twak.blogspot.com/2010/03/procedural-content-vs-copyright.html Procedural content is when you design a machine that creates something (a 3D model!). I wrote this a while back about some of the IP implications of this technology.

http://twak.blogspot.com/2010/03/procedural-content-vs-copyright.html

]]> By: Dan Mac http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032554 Dan Mac Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032554 The Economist weighs in on 3D printers: http://www.economist.com/node/18114221 The Economist weighs in on 3D printers:
http://www.economist.com/node/18114221

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032394 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032394 Challenge people to reverse engineer your (unoriginal) object, then get mad at them for being successful? Really? Challenge people to reverse engineer your (unoriginal) object, then get mad at them for being successful? Really?

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032396 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032396 Did anyone think to ask Penrose what he thought? Did anyone think to ask Penrose what he thought?

]]> By: duann http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032404 duann Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032404 I am not sure Ulrich actually issued a challenge? You can download his original version now here http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=24093&#msg_24093 I am not sure Ulrich actually issued a challenge?

You can download his original version now here http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=24093&#msg_24093

]]> By: devophill http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032412 devophill Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032412 I love ya, Cory, but you gotta watch that not parsing thing. You do it kind of a lot, and if you don't watch out it'll bite you in the ass! I love ya, Cory, but you gotta watch that not parsing thing. You do it kind of a lot, and if you don’t watch out it’ll bite you in the ass!

]]> By: Simon Bradshaw http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032416 Simon Bradshaw Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032416 I wondered how long it would take... The question about how 3D printing impinges in IP rights has been looked at by Michael Weinberg from a US perspective (<a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/10/white-paper-on-3d-pr.html">see previous BB coverage</a> and the paper Adrian 'RepRap' Bowyer and I wrote <a href="http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp">from the UK legal position</a>. Product spares will be a big issue. In the UK we have a very strong legal tradition of protecting the right of consumers to buy (or make!) third-party spares, but this is subject to constraints - see the Dyson case on appearance-matching accessories for vacuum cleaners. As for the question of when something stops being a sculpture (protected by copyright in the UK) and instead becomes a mere 3D product (protected at most by limited design rights), we are about to go into Round 3 of <i>Lucasfilm v Ainsworth</i>, as the UK Supreme Court decides what category Imperial Stormtrooper helmets fall into. I wondered how long it would take…

The question about how 3D printing impinges in IP rights has been looked at by Michael Weinberg from a US perspective (see previous BB coverage and the paper Adrian ‘RepRap’ Bowyer and I wrote from the UK legal position.

Product spares will be a big issue. In the UK we have a very strong legal tradition of protecting the right of consumers to buy (or make!) third-party spares, but this is subject to constraints – see the Dyson case on appearance-matching accessories for vacuum cleaners. As for the question of when something stops being a sculpture (protected by copyright in the UK) and instead becomes a mere 3D product (protected at most by limited design rights), we are about to go into Round 3 of Lucasfilm v Ainsworth, as the UK Supreme Court decides what category Imperial Stormtrooper helmets fall into.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032418 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032418 I guess it has been taken as a challenge because of non-disclosed and perfectly working trick (great work). Maybe the price of $70 on Shapeways was perceived as high by the (rather technical?) potential buyer ? - I'm wondering what would have happened if the price of this object was $9.99 ? - I'm also wondering what would have happened if the author had shared the trick from the beginning ? I guess it has been taken as a challenge because of non-disclosed and perfectly working trick (great work). Maybe the price of $70 on Shapeways was perceived as high by the (rather technical?) potential buyer ?

- I’m wondering what would have happened if the price of this object was $9.99 ?
- I’m also wondering what would have happened if the author had shared the trick from the beginning ?

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032422 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032422 ... 3D models of sex toys ... I look forward to the day when there is an open source repository of 3D data for printing dongs and vibrators. … 3D models of sex toys …

I look forward to the day when there is an open source repository of 3D data for printing dongs and vibrators.

]]> By: julian http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032440 julian Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032440 Seems like the other point here is that somebody couldn't wait more than "a few hours" to get an answer to an email. I think that at least 24 hours should be the minimal expectation for a response to an email, unless there is some prior understanding about the need for a quick turnaround. Seems like the other point here is that somebody couldn’t wait more than “a few hours” to get an answer to an email. I think that at least 24 hours should be the minimal expectation for a response to an email, unless there is some prior understanding about the need for a quick turnaround.

]]> By: tebee http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html#comment-1032441 tebee Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1032441 It's hard for me to workout what, if any, copyright would have been infringed, most likely Penrose's ! If the STL or other 3-d file was not a direct copy of the original but an independent re-creation then it does not infringe - the resulting 3-d object has very little copyright protection except possibly as a sculpture and the fact that it was based on an original that was was not intended to be a 3-d design would suggest that any copyright would vest in that in much the same way that if you copy one of Disney's figures in 3-d the copyright rest with them not you. Trying to grant copyright to 3-d object would be the start of a slippery slope with very unfortunate unintended consequences. Copyright is generated by simply creating an applicable object, it does not have to be applied for. So if it applied to 3-d objects then every man made object would be covered by copyright and it would be next to impossible to ever take a photo or show anything on television without breaking copyright law! I've a longer version of this reply on the Shapeway's blog linked above, to save repeating it all have a look there. It’s hard for me to workout what, if any, copyright would have been infringed, most likely Penrose’s !

If the STL or other 3-d file was not a direct copy of the original but an independent re-creation then it does not infringe – the resulting 3-d object has very little copyright protection except possibly as a sculpture and the fact that it was based on an original that was was not intended to be a 3-d design would suggest that any copyright would vest in that in much the same way that if you copy one of Disney’s figures in 3-d the copyright rest with them not you.

Trying to grant copyright to 3-d object would be the start of a slippery slope with very unfortunate unintended consequences.

Copyright is generated by simply creating an applicable object, it does not have to be applied for. So if it applied to 3-d objects then every man made object would be covered by copyright and it would be next to impossible to ever take a photo or show anything on television without breaking copyright law!

I’ve a longer version of this reply on the Shapeway’s blog linked above, to save repeating it all have a look there.

]]>