Explain the flaw in this licensing argument

I have a model on Makerworld and a commercial licensing program.

I found someone on Etsy selling one of my models. They are not a member of my commercial licensing program.

I have a right to demand Etsy remove the infringing models. Because the seller is not a member of my licensing program, they have no legal recourse against me and would be unlikely to prevail in a lawsuit against me for damages to their business for lost sales.

The best you can hope for it the model being taken down after you notified Etsy.
Going for the lost money or compensation won’t get you anywhere and will only cost you money :frowning:

IMHO its always better to try to deal with it civilly and giving them the benefit of the doubt. I would contact them and let them know the model is not for commercial sale unless they subscribe to the license, they might say sorry and sign up.

If you approach it with legalese, it can go south real quick and put them on the defensive, always better to kill them with kindness. This actually reminded me of when someone sent me a legal cease and desist letter on a used item I was selling with one of their models as an accessory on a used marketplace. I wound up being rubbed the wrong way by it and I created my own competing product. If they were nice I would have never done that. Sometimes it can just be a misunderstanding.

They can’t sue you for loss of revenue due to you forcing them not to you use your IP.

You could sue them for profiting from their use of your IP without the required commercial terms. You will get nothing though.

They are thieves in this example, thieves are not afforded protection because they are thieves.

Deal with Etsy they are annoying, but they have a procedure.

The more strikes a thief has, the less able they are to sell other stolen material.

Maybe if I reframe this out of 3d printing it will be more obvious what the flaw is.

I’m a author of horror stories, I’ve written a new book and licensed it to Tor press (only) for publication.

A few months after publication I find someone selling new copies on Amazon of my book for 1/2 of what I charge. So I complain to Amazon and they take down the listing.

The person selling them on Amazon sues me and wins. What was my mistake?

I think this is a better conversation between you and a your lawyer, preferably one that specializes in that type of law. Law does not always make sense and sometimes courts dont rule appropriately, that is why appeals exist.

I have no idea how you could possibly become the victim of the criminal.

Did this happen or is it a hypothetical?

I can’t see this playing out in the real world as you should have the evidence of being the original IP owner, and notices of how your work is to be used (the model licences, to use that original idea) and that only those with an active commercial licence can sell your work.

The defendant would need to prove they had the rights to they do not have.

Plus, you shouldn’t be the party as it was Amazon that blocked the sale and not you, their agreement was with Amazon in this example, you are not a party to that.

They would demonstrate they had sufficient cause to break any agreement as they were presented with evidence that met their required burden of proof.

This is the mistake.

You need to provide more than that, as so far, you are making no sense.

Start by answering the first question.

To me? No, but it happens all the time. As to whether creators get sued for it, I wouldn’t expect it to be much of a risk unless they happen to find out you have money. If I was, for example, some famous dragon-themed creator I would be very cautious about interfering in other peoples businesses since how much revenue I’m generating is publicly known.

This statement, “only those with an active commercial licence can sell your work” is not factually correct. I tried to make that clearer with the book illustration. I’ll spell it out. The people on Amazon selling your book bought them from Tor.

And that is the dangerous assumption people are making. No one is going to chase after you unless they think you have money, but if you knock down a 30K per month etsy shop and they think you have the money to pay, they might absolutely go after you.

You can’t assume that people selling your designs aren’t doing so legitimately simply because they don’t have a license.

This just made things more confusing.

Your original question and this revision are worlds apart and have no obvious link.

Who is Tor in this example? A person, company or the Tor service?

Whichever it is, unless they have permission, they can’t sell it. If that permission is transferred through a right bestowed on them by you, then they are allowed.

Use a real example, with a real scenario, and stop adding stuff in unless you make it very clear to which party they attach.

Do not say things like:

When you fail to provide any point of reference.

Simply adding “I’ve written a new book…” after changing the entire premise hurts, not helps.

If we use your literal:

“I’m a author of horror stories, I’ve written a new book and licensed it to Tor press (only) for publication.”

This makes no sense.

“The person selling them on Amazon sues me and wins. What was my mistake?”

I already answered it.

If the only organisation allowed to sell your work is Tor Press, anyone else selling the book doesn’t have a commercial licence to sell it.

You losing in court would only be possible if you offended the court.

Again, if someone sells your work without your permission, that is a crime.