The standard license isn’t a license at all, it’s just a restatement of copyright restrictions. Instead you can just put “copyright 2024 me. all rights reserved” on it, there is no difference.
Using the makerworld standand license doesn’t even allow the user to print the object.
IDK about the MW “Standard Digital License” not allowing prints (that is interesting and I don’t see anything in the phasing which carves out an exception for personal use printing there). It would seem pointless though. But in any case, better licenses than CC are needed for 3D designers. For a designer who wants to restrict low effort slicer based “remixes” and have some control over which platforms their work (not the remixes) are hosted on, there are no good options other than the “big hammer”. That’s not even to mention if the designer wants to restrict AI models from using their design to train.
(my feeling) is that the point of Gridfinity is that it is an open standard, so the creation of different grid systems is not what I think most people would have in mind when considering “Gridfinity”. The question I had was really if the Gridfinity “system” or more accurately the specifications for the base grid and associated bin features, would be a copyrightable thing, if the original models are not used to directly make a Gridfinity bin or grid as part of something new (like a Gridfinity bin which holds 21 silly straws or something like that).
I also just want to note that the issue I had with the Etsy seller was not gridfinity related.
IDK about the MW “Standard Digital License” not allowing prints (that is interesting and I don’t see anything in the phasing which carves out an exception for personal use printing there).
Yes, but it’s not that it “doesn’t allow personal printing” but that it never granted the right for personal printing.
It’s actually worse than it seems on the surface. In the absence of the “standard digital license” a court would likely find there is an implied license to do what someone would normally do with a STL. But there is a “license”, it just doesn’t grant any rights!
Someone would be perfectly within their rights to upload something to makerworld and claiming that it was for their own personal convenience and ease of printing sue someone who did print it.
This is why non-lawyers should not craft licenses, and if you are going to steal a license from another site you are cloning you should have a lawyer look at it before using it.
I’m no layer but Gridfinity is under MIT licencing. Which allows commercial use so yes to me you can use the specifications of the Gridfinity to make custom bins and sell them. I guess you could even sell Gridfinity grids you want to.
If you have doubts, the best way to dissipate them is to ask those questions directly to Zach IMHO.
That’s nuts, but the other site also got it wrong (or who knows). I will just put it out there that I won’t sue anyone for printing my designs which use the “Standard Digital License”, for personal use LOL. That just highlights the fact that better licenses are needed for 3D printing.
I think a solution to all this would be a prove of creation of the initial model. Like uploading the CAD file and using the timeline as a kind of checksum. If you cant provide it, you are not allowed to upload the model. Maybe I am missing something still, but it may be a first step. Only when the creator gives away the full file like the .f3d, a remix is granted. This could be insured by comparing the timelines and see a similarity in those. For example the way shazam recognizes songs (not sure).