For a long time, I’ve been thinking about the legal implications of creating and publishing self-designed objects or models that have a clear connection to Frenchies, such as those from Disney (Star Wars, Marvel, etc.).
This thought has become more concrete recently because I’m considering making cake toppers for my daughter’s birthday, featuring the silhouettes of well-known Disney princesses. The SVG files for these silhouettes can be found on various websites, of course they are not official Disney releases. Would this not already be a copyright infringement?
What if I modify these files and then make them publicly available, but not for commercial use, only for personal use?
To answer your question and full disclosure, I am not an attorney. Yes, this is a definite copyright infringement. However, as my attorneys would say “As a practical matter” which means, there’s the letter of the law and then there’s what’s pragmatic. As a practical matter, the copyright holder would have to demonstrate financial damages were incurred as a result of your actions. In today’s world, that would be more a matter the copyright holder issuing a DMCA take-down request to the site operator not necessarily the contributor.
Now if you decided to make 10,000 such devices and sell them on let’s say Etsy, that would paint a target on your back because you are now collecting money for the product. Even if it were for something like charity, the copyright holder can demonstrate that money that should have gone to them, instead went to another avenue where they missed out on that revenue.
I am not versed in law, so my comment is only an opinion based on reading, asking and listening to information from professionals.
I agree with Olias; it is an infringement. The license protects all those products against copy and derivative works. The legal use requires permission from the copyright owner(s). Also, even if you download a model licensed as, e.g. CC-BY, it is only valid if the one who shared owns the copyrights of the model; otherwise, you still infringe the law.
Consequences. Whilst the infringement is precise, the effective penalisation depends on many factors:
1. Location: The consequences depend on your own country’s legislation. A nation is still sovereign on the legal measures and procedures (except if there is a branch in the International Human Rights):
2. Utilisation: is by far the most important. In general, it depends on the use you give to products, and this does not relate only to 3D printing:
Personal use is typically a green zone.
Educational and research: despite being more complex, it can be considered fair use. Even so, the best approach is to ask permission, which is usually granted.
Other uses: the general rule is based on the premise that consequences exist if the infringement damages the copyright owner. Common cases relate to companies, so financial damage is the typical measure. a) no income -------> If no financial transactions are associated with the infraction, the “crime” is likely ignored or ends with a request (not necessarily to you) to stop the process. Even so, there are many grey areas.
For example, sharing a 3D model of a Disney character undoubtedly breaches the copyright, yet will hardly affect Disney’s financial outcome. However, printing and distributing the print may affect toy manufacturers who bought Disney’s licenses.
This doesn’t mean that sharing models is decriminalised. Imagine that you share a model from a maker that sells the 3D model; in this case, you directly affect the owner.
In all these cases, the copyright owner is entitled to and will likely win a lawsuit against the one who violates the law. The key reason for not initiating the procedure relates to the outcome. How can you measure the financial damage? You cannot prove that those downloading or getting the print would buy it if it weren’t illegally distributed. So despite the win, the outcome as a company is expenses with the process. b) income -------> It is entirely different if financial transactions are involved, especially if the values are substantial. You are not entitled to the revenue; the copyright owner can precisely quantify the losses. This is the danger zone.
The issue is augmented by the outdated copyright laws, which defined principles before the internet.
An elementary summary, but already presenting some practical cases, can be found:
But one of the most detailed examples that I found online is for photography.
Thank you for your response. Based on what you wrote and what I have learned in the past few days, I would say that one is always operating in the realm of copyright infringement. Most of the time, it’s just too laborious or too costly for companies to pursue legal action, especially when the publisher has no benefit or financial gain from it. So, people here and on other platforms are playing with this fact and risking, at most, that their models may need to be removed by the site’s operator, but without facing any consequences themselves.
At this point, I will choose not to upload any self-created models that may appear to be associated with a copyright.
Your article has made that clear to me once again.
Yes, there are many such models out there, but that doesn’t mean one won’t be the one who steps into the pitfalls themselves.
There are enough designers who allow commercial use or the sale of the printed models. This means that the buyer of the model prints these models and then sells them.
But now two examples:
Example #1
A designer sells his self-created model of a Super Mario figure with a commercial license. The buyer of the licensed model, prints them en masse and sells them via etsy, classifieds, ebay, own shop.
Who now violates the trademark rights of Nintendo?
Who now violates the copyrights of Nintendo?
Seller of the print
The designer
both
none
And why?
Example #2
The designer has created for a Nintendo Switch Docking Station in Minecraft design and offers this print data for sale with a commercial license. The buyer then prints this docking station and offers it via etsy, classifieds, ebay, own shop.
Who now violates the trademark rights of Nintendo?
Who now violates the copyrights of Nintendo?
Who now violates the trademark rights of Microsoft?
Who now violates the copyrights of the company Microsoft?
Here is an article about what are in public domain as of January 1 2024. Notebly, Mickey Mouse entered public domain this year, according to this article. Note: I have not checked the validity of the claims in this article. Before designing/making something to sell, or to give others the commercial rights to your design, do more research to confirm so as to avoid copyright infringement.