I often see designs that are based on, or 100% identical with designs that are owned by other companies, like Disney, Coca Cola and many more. Still these 3D design files have the ‘Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike’ license in Makersworld (and many other 3D design sharing paltforms).
I can’t imagine that these designs that 3D design creators use, are licensed to them to create 3D art. So how can these 3D designers give a noncommercial etc. license of their designs? Just wondering.
I was wondering the same thing about the use of the Bambulab logo. Unfortunately, there was no answer here in the forum. I found on the net that Bambulab apparently tacitly tolerates this. The only stupid thing is that the rules clearly state that such logos (which are of course protected) may not be used, especially not to suggest that the product itself comes from Bambulab or is associated with Bambulab or is supported by Bambulab itself. But this is exactly how the Bambulab logo is often used and even in design contests. Even the simplest things are labelled with the logo, no doubt in the hope that this will increase the number of downloads.
As far as I have seen, the winners of the contests are determined by the number of downloads. So if someone is already very well known because they constantly appear in the top search results on the Makerworld pages, it’s child’s play for them to win a contest.
It will be similar with the use of other designs of figures / logos that originate from Disney, for example. I recently read that copyrights in the USA expire after 70 years, but I don’t know to what extent this is true and whether someone could extend a copyright, perhaps other users know more about this.
Kind regards!
1 Like
this is subjective. We need more information before any factual answer can be given. Also, there are instances where copyrighted IPs can be used under “Fair Use”. These include Parody, Education, and Transformative Media.
Here are some questions and answers that might make understanding Fair use easier.
- Was the model made by the designer? (By this, I mean did they spend hours/days/weeks making that model from nothing but vertices/edges/faces, and not ripped from an asset such as a game character or prop?)
- Whilst the character may be copyrighted, the designer has made their creation 100%, and thus the item would be classed as “Fan Art”. Under Fair Use, such projects can be shared freely (providing it does not portray said IP in a bad image that would be considered harmful to that company) but cannot be sold.
-
Is the design a loosely based interpretation of said IP? (does it look like the dragon Toothless, but doesn’t match the original art style of the movie.)
+This counts under Fair Use as Transformative Media. You see that IP as the intended character, but it is not a carbon copy; something about them must be different in some way. Like a Pikachu with the Rock’s head on it would be considered Transformative. These forms of media can be freely shared and, if Transformative enough, can also be sold.
-
is it a parody? (in the case of logo’s, the shape/layout and font are the same as the coca-cola logo, but the text on it is something humorous.)
+Parody is protected under Fair Use, providing it is also Transformative in some way. You can share Parody items freely, but it’s debatable if you can sell them (this part of Fair Use has changed a lot over the years and I am not as familiar with it).
-
is it used for educational purposes? (is the model being printed for students to learn the process of printing and/or modelling.)
+Items made for Education are heavily protected by Fair Use, contrary to what the likes of YouTube like to think; so long as said educational items are not being sold.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know all the ins and outs of Fair Use, sections of it have changed over the years, but so long as the media does not put a negative image onto the IP or owner of said IP, then it is protected to use it under Fair Use so long as it falls under one of those above categories.
Also, if these creators are saying “Don’t sell prints of these models” they’re doing it to protect YOU as the printer; they’re not the ones who’ll get a copyright claim or lawsuit against them if you get caught selling the prints, because in the license it explicitly says you shouldn’t do it. Also, provided the creator genuinely made their model, they have the right to say if you can or cannot sell prints of it. They spent years of training, and weeks of work, to make that model for FREE for everyone to use.
1 Like
this is also based on the medium. 70 years is for visual media like film and television. Music and literature have different expiration periods, and if the owner of the copyrighted IP is company-based (like Disney is) then they can renew that copyright license, just like they did with the “Classic” Mickey.
1 Like
Interesting discussion.
I guess for big brands, requests for permission to use the brand for non commercial or commercial use must be pretty common, but I have found it surprisingly difficult to find who you contact.
Then for some brands the contact completely ignoring your requests.
Other brands though I have found to be pretty responsive and sometimes even quite interested in 3d printing as long as it isn’t to the detriment of the brand.
Interesting points made above about parody being allowed in particular.
2 Likes
I also forgot to mention that copyright is VERY different between the West and the East, especially in China. The reason you see a lot of bootlegs in the likes of China is that there aren’t as strict laws in place when it comes to copyright; they do exist but aren’t as heavily enforced.
The Lepin vs LEGO case is a good example; it took LEGO, a multimillion-dollar company, YEARS to stop a 9-person operation. And this is just one of the many LEGO clones out there; Lepin’s major difference from the other clones is that they just outright reused LEGO box art for everything, whilst the other clones do their own. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but my basic understanding of this is that if in the case of LEGO, they can prove without a shadow of a doubt their IP has been stolen, then the Chinese authorities will act on it, otherwise they’ll end up forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers fees trying to get a tiny operation shut down as they did with Lepin.
To sum it up; BambuLab, being located in Asia, is probably safe from the copyright on these non-commercial models because nobody is buying the models, BambuLab isn’t paying anyone for the models either; the gift card incentive could be seen as payment, but it’s not actual money being given to anyone; you just get a gift card for exclusive use in the Bambu Store. That is VERY different to being paid.