I offer a custom 3d printing service, and I was contacted to make a mask for cosplay. The issue however is that the license for this mask prohibits commercial use. Am I allowed to just offer this service and print the file for the customer, or is this a violation of the terms of the license.
No
Yes
You cannot print and sell the work of others simply because you wish to.
All models have some form of licence as shown on the model pages.
If the model prohibits commercial use, you may download it for your OWN use. You may not sell it as they have said you are not allowed.
The designer may have a commercial licence which will let you print the model for commercial gain (your needs) only if you pay a licence fee on subscription. This would require you to sign up for a service and pay a fee to print their models. You must follow all of those commercial terms otherwise you may be liable for prosecution.
If you have not been confirming and abiding by the licences of the models you sell, you may well find yourself in court one day having to pay back thousands and far more in punitive damages alone with a criminal record.
You canāt just sell other peopleās work without their permission and only after following all the terms and conditions.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, you only own the rights to models that you design, and everyone else owns their rights.
Theft is theft.
3 Likes
If all you charge the customer for is the material and fabrication costs, and they supply the STL, youāre good. Equivalent to them renting your machine and printing it for themselves.
3 Likes
Thank you for the response and explaining it to me, I am assuming what RocketSled said is incorrect right?
2 Likes
It might be in some countries, but, most would still require you to be responsible for confirming the legitimacy.
You know the licence prohibits this usage. You are on the hook.
You are a professional business and cannot play the āI didnāt know cardā.
If your service were entirely automated, you would have a defence, it would be up to the court system to decide if the rights owner sued.
Aight thank you, iāll probably try to message the designer and see if I can get permission.
2 Likes
Hmmm. Thereās a lot of grey area around determining ownership of a STL.
If no legally-recognized system exists (like there is for patents), Iām not sure I agree that you could be held responsible. āYour honor, there is no way for me to definitively determine if a STL I have been provided to print belongs to the person requesting the print, please tell me how I could have done thisā.
Customer says āhereās a STL, print it for meā. You say āOK, it will cost you this much for the plastic and this much for the machine time and I am not adding any additional feesā. Iām not sure that is prohibited. You rent out your machine, you rent your time as a machinist, you produce the part per the drawings provided. The customer who had the part fabricated is the one on the hook and not the machinist. And provided they donāt sell what gets produced, theyāre probably not in violation of any license, anyway.
But yeah, itās grey. Better to simply ask, if thatās an option.
4 Likes
If you made it, you own it, if you didnāt, you donāt.
That seems very clear. It isnāt STL specific.
Erm, copyright, anything I create I automatically own the rights to it. That is very legally recognised.
The judge asksā¦
What due-diligence did you perform when you were asked to print this model? Sorry, you are a business and didnāt know you had to follow the law?
As I said before, there is a potential grey area if the entire system is automated, but, even then I can hear the judge sayingā¦
What systems do you have in-place to guarantee the rights owner has been respected? What, no system, sorry, you are a business based on providing services that require third-party copyrighted models.
A good equivalent would be suggesting fonts have no legal protection and they are in a grey area, yet, that is very black and white, no difference here.
Having owned several businesses and been involved in defending and protecting rights, I have experience in this field.
1 Like
Itās admirable that you are trying to do the right thing.
Can I ask you the 2nd-level question? If the mask was (for example) a Deadpool mask, do you think the designer secured any rights from Disney to make it? Are you going to check?
1 Like
Malc, you seem like somebody who would probably know the answer to this, why is it allowed to post things like DC and Marvel on here even though it is illegal to use for commercial purposes, not trying bash your work, just curious?
Well to my knowledge it is allowed to design things like that for non commercial purposes, I am no expert though so please let me know if I am wrong.
Most countries have exceptions for fan art if there is no commercial aspect to it.
If you are selling it you are profiting from someone elseās IP and you are liable to prosecution, more likely, being sued by the rights owner which will be at least civil, possibly also criminal.
Some countries allow both uses, they are few and likely have a dictator running it.
You should always check with the rights owner for anything commercial, if you ship things out of the country you should also check that countryās laws as the bigger the company, the bigger the reach.
I donāt think I explained my question well enough, why is it allowed to post models on makerworld with copyrighted terms even though people can make money off of it?
1 Like
You did, I donāt think I answered it clearly enough.
I spoke about the commercial use and only implied the non-commercial other than this below.
Your extra bit now.
If you mean money, no one can make money of it.
The exclusive program prohibits any works with someone elseās IP.
Receiving points that could be turned into gift cards isnāt legally considered commercial gain. Many countries including the US and the U.K. do not even consider gift cards as a taxable income.
So, if you are talking about gift cards, they are not considered income and thus not commercial.
If you are talking about the exclusive program which does provide cash, such models are prohibited from entry, so you canāt earn money from them.
If you are talking selling the prints, that is commercial and not allowed.
Ok, I understand now, thank you
1 Like
I can only answer in my experience as a creator under US law, unlike apparently the UK, there is no exception to trademark or copyright law for non-commercial use. In practice a few IP holders are tolerant of āfan artā, but this is not an exception that exists in law.
Malc has an interesting idea here. Sounds like you could charge your customer in gift cards which will side-step the entire issue of it being ācommercial useā of the model. And it would be tax free! 
I think he was referring to the boost program here.
He was, here is how it could work in your case. The customer awards you 1000 boost points for each model you print. You then have the option of exchanging 5000 boost points from him for a $50 gift card. No commercial use and tax free! Everyone wins!
Sure? How would you report this on your taxes? Social media: the taxation of influencers and content creators | Tax Adviser
Thatās definitely not the case in Norway. Any earnings, gains, or received income are taxed, regardless of whether youāre a registered business. If these gains can substitute or āact as incomeā, they are considered incomeāand therefore, youāre effectively treated as being in business. And you must register as a business, follow the applicable laws, and the circle is complete.
And the threshold for something to āact as incomeā? A general rule of thumb: just a few hoursā worth of a normal wage.
By the way, I completely agree with 'theft is theft.
Tax law is a very local thing and intricacies concerning such niche items as gift cards are more complex.
Remember: Norwegian tax laws and ārules of thumbā do not apply in UK. UK tax laws do not apply in US (and they made a big deal about it 200 something years ago), US tax laws regarding income differ from state to stateā¦ So anybody arguing applicable tax law on international forum without specifying exact location and applicable tax law is WRONG by default.