I wonder who is going to be the first person to try and sue someone for giving a 3d print to their grand child. 
3 Likes
Herb is obviously a thoughtful guy since he asked the question instead of just blindly risking violating the license. That is a rarity and should be commended, not ridiculed.
So now I hope he knows he can send the creator a message and ask for permission. One of two things is going to happen. The creator says “yes” and Herb can sleep soundly at night knowing 100% for certain that he didn’t violate the license, or the creator can say “nah, sorry Herb, I don’t think that is a good toy for a child. I’m not going to risk it.” and Herb can also still sleep well at night, maybe a little disappointed, but perhaps even more soundly.
I guess there is a 3rd possibility that he won’t get a reply, but do you even know one creator here who wouldn’t?
2 Likes
So, should a husband seek permission to print an object any time he wants to print something for his wife? Despite not needing to seek permission to print it for himself.
At what point must he seek permission? Does the license disallow a husband from sharing the 3d printed object with his wife? If they live together and sleep together in the same bed, but he’s not allowed to give it to her? When does ownership transfer, if they live in the same house? Is it okay for him to retain ownership of it, even though she is the only one that messes with it? But if he says this is yours now, then he is legally liable to be sued by the designer?
If a grandparent 3d prints something, but it stays at their house, that is okay and they don’t need to seek permission. Though the grand child can come and play with the 3d print all they like. You give an example saying maybe the designer would be against it because the toy might not be suitable for a kid, but how or why is that a deciding factor when the grandparent could retain ownership of the item, skirting needing to ask permission, and so never getting approval that it’s suitable for the child? Should the grandparent seek permission from a designer before letting one of their grandchildren even play with the item at the grand parent’s house, where they retain ownership of it?
For that matter, the designer can refuse to let someone print something as a gift for someone because they may not find it suitable, but couldn’t that same person that they didn’t think it was suitable for, then go and just create a makerworld account, download the item, and print it themselves?
How do you feel about the thought that someone would sue another because that person 3d printed something for their grand child? do you think that would hold up in court?
1 Like
I was trying to advise a general method of obtaining a licensing exception or how to resolve ambiguous license terms. The next person might be asking “I want to give this to my grandchild, and all of her classmates”. He also mentioned friends and visitors at church. So I was trying to answer it generally. Someone might ask about “how can I sell these NC items”, “can I remix this for my etsy store”, etc.
So if he found himself in any of those scenarios you presented and was confused about what to do, he should ask the creator. Not us.
But specifically, what is the harm in doing the right thing? He could have written the creator and gotten an answer with 100% certainty. Why not ask for clarification from the creator every time if you have a question about the exact meaning of a license? It’s their design! Asking in the forums is the wrong answer. Asking the creator is the right answer.
I’m getting the idea that you have a problem with the Standard Digital File License. Yeah, it’s crummy. But the people to take that up with is Makerworld. For the people who chose that license it really isn’t up to you to second guess why they did.
I don’t have a problem with the license itself.
I’m not going to sit here and dance around the ridiculous notion though that someone could be legally liable for giving a 3d printed item as a gift to someone they have a personal relationship with.
You didn’t answer my question directly either, you just skirted around it. How do you feel about the thought that someone would sue another because that person 3d printed something for their grandchild? I’m asking your opinion.
And again, to what extent does this apply? Can a husband not give a 3d printed item to his wife? And how do we determine that ownership even changed hands? I’m asking your opinion.
There’s enough of a distinction between someone printing a bunch of stuff for members of their church, vs someone printing something for someone they have a personal relationship with.
I mean shoots and ladders dude, I print stuff for my best friend because he doesn’t feel he has the time to get into it himself. Are you going to sue me? Do you think I am causing someone harm or taking away from their profits? given that the model printed is provided for free on makerworld. Again, am I legally in trouble? Would I not be legally in trouble if he came over to my house, downloaded the file himself, put it on the printer himself, and hit print with his own finger? Or is he not allowed to use my 3d printer?
How do you think the 3d printing community would react if a designer sued someone for giving a 3d print to their grand child? With the simple facts being that they saw something they thought their grand child would like that was on Makerworld for free, so they printed it and gave it to them.
1 Like
Do you only do the right thing out of fear of punishment or retribution?
Alright I get it. You want to dance around the issue.
You know that it would not look good for you to fully admit that what you’re advocating, arguing, is essentially saying that someone can be sued for giving a 3d printed item to their grandchild, despite the fact that the item is provided for free online.
You avoid the question of can a husband give a 3d printed item to a wife, because it’s such a stupid and ridiculous notion that it starts to show how this whole idea breaks down at this level.
You know the 3d printing community would not react well if someone tried to sue another under the circumstances I’ve stated.
You’re scared to just say it. Print something for your grandchild, who cares.
What designer would care if someone printed something for their grandchild. Do you? Do you want grandparents to explicitly seek your permission? Do you want a husband to seek your permission too if he wanted to print one of your designs for his wife? But then again, like I said. What if he just showed her on the computer and she printed it. Why would you be okay with that, but against it if he printed it and gave it to her?
Do you think I should sue the people that admitted in the comments that they did prints for their family/friends because they thought the design was so awesome? Is that something you would do?
You don’t have to answer that last one. You know full well I wouldn’t do anything to those folks. I love them. They make me smile.
They aren’t doing it for commercial gain or for commercial interest. There is areas where it’s gray and suitable to ask, like if you’re printing stuff for church members. However, I think there’s enough of a distinction between that and personal use such as giving something to a loved one, that most reasonable people are able to make that distinction.
2 Likes
Um, you seem to be having an argument with yourself, not with me. I don’t even understand where your questions are coming from. But I sincerely hope you win!
Herb asked a question. I tried to provide guidance. It is 100% clear to me that he is solely motivated by a desire to do the right thing and not because he is afraid of being sued.
I am saddened and depressed to learn that you do not seem to share his ethos.
1 Like
Josh, that’s not the question.
I’m reading this with interest (I really am hoping for eventual clarification, not just starting an argument). This right here is one of the problems, or at least I THINK it is. It appears to this newbies perspective that MakerWorld defaults to that license. And because of that, it is often not appropriate.
For instance; because of what I’m looking to eventually do, I saw stands to display goods. Yet the SDFL says “The objects may not be used without permission in any way whatsoever in which you charge money, or collect fees.”
So there’s a conundrum. Reading the license literally, printing a display stand to put up in the market to sell legitimately reproduced models is (technically) a violation. You are indeed using the object to charge money.
I gave an example in a previous response of a model (actually I saw several) that is either obviously designed to be used in a marketplace setting (virtually all of those I saw), and in many cases has the owner describing using them for that. Would putting a display stand that holds dozens of printed objects (obviously for sale) constitute implied permission? If the description included something along the lines of “I made something similar for the bobbles I sell, and modified it for this other bobble” constitute permission (implied?) for it to be used to make money?
This is a real life example. I’m trying not to be too specific, because I don’t want to embarrass someone for what appears to be misapplication of the SDFL (I’m still not 100% sure that it’s applied by default, I haven’t uploaded anything yet); but I download just that, a display item to display something I planned on selling. I was impressed by it, but didn’t like the fact that it rotated using friction of the printed plastic. So, I modified it to use a bearing.
From what I’ve read (elsewhere, I’m REALLY trying to figure it all out), modifying the original is not allowed without expressed permission. The SDFL doesn’t give that, nor did he in his description. So, did I do wrong?
Then, when I think about it, I’m not even sure I violated the “do not modify” stuff, since the part I designed was simply another screw in insert that had a bearing; basically an add-on part.
I guess where I’m going is that so much of this, in the (admittedly new to me) world of 3D printing really relies on intent, rather than specific “letter of the law”.
Did the designer intend for me to use the display to make money from it - by displaying my bobbles to sell. Yes, obviously. Did he intend for me to make money from it by printing 1000 of them and selling them to other dealers at the market - I’m relatively sure not.
My original question wasn’t even a made up example, it was real life for me. Within a week of getting my new printer, I printed an articulated dragon, mostly as a challenge to see if I could. I’m still not sure which I find more amazing, how easy it was or how cool the dragon looked. I didn’t even really want to keep it for me, I was just impressed what how it turned out. We have a young adult granddaughter that lives with us, and I mentioned to my wife “I think granddaughter1 would really like this, I think I’ll give it to her” (oops, didn’t realize I was breaking the agreement). Then, my wife said “I really liked it myself, can you make another one”. Of course, i did. Then 3 days later she said “That dragon you made, well graddaughter1 showed it to granddaughter2 (her cousin) and she liked it so much, I gave her mine. Will you make me another?” (BTW, it wasn’t a request at that point). Of course, I did, and broke the rules again. But it gets deeper.
My wife (who is an ordained associate pastor at our church), showed it to the children in her class. Right after I got out of the sound booth (where I spend my Sundays) I had three little girls saying “Mrs. Gini said we should ask you to make us a dragon”. That’s when I discovered what she had done.
I politely told them “No, I can’t. They take 8 hours each to print, and I have other things I need to use it for”. then spent the next week printing 10 of them so she’d have enough for her class. (The violation of the license just got bigger).
That’s when an obviously not very original idea occurred to me. I’m getting old and close to retirement, maybe this would be a good side-hustle.
So, I checked into it, and that’s when I paid closer attention to the various licenses and agreements. The designer of the particular dragon offered a more detailed version, and sold a commercial license for it. I bought it, and have printed out several, some have been given away (now totally legit), and some I’m starting to build up inventory, for the possibility/probability that I’ll be selling some soon.
So, in summary - did I violate (albeit unintentionally) the SDFL? Undoubtedly. Did I violate the “intent” or “spirit” of the SDFL? I don’t think so. Although there were 13 of them made, the originals were for basically “personal” use, and I made no money off of them, and didn’t want to make money. I made them for the shear joy of it, and “distributed” them because … what in the world am I going to do with 13 articulated dragons (if I can’t sell them?) As soon as even had an inkling that I might start selling them, I bought a license from the designer to do so. I didn’t think to ask him about the others (though your suggestion is a fair on, in retrospect) but the process pretty obviously got him something he wanted, an enthusiastic follower giving him money for his work.
So, is the bigger question, did this all work the way it should, in spite of the missteps?
1 Like
TLDR: You should abide by the licence terms that the creator has imposed or there may be consequences. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the MakerWorld terms of use that prohibits creators and users from coming to a different agreement to the licence terms specified by the creator. So if a user wishes to use the digital file or print beyond what is allowed, contacting the creator would be a good starting point.
As a lawyer in the UK (and this is not to be construed as legal advice in any way but merely an opinion), I wholeheartedly agree with mugglesmuggle and their gripe with what you’ve said. It is irrelevant whether the use of the digital or physical file is for a commercial gain or interest, the licence terms for using the file or physical print are there for a reason and if someone doesn’t like those terms, don’t use it. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
That said, you are probably right that nobody is likely to sue a young grandchild for IP infringement for obvious reasons, but the creator of the work product could go after the individual who printed it on the basis of them breaching the licence terms. Other (expensive) issues may crop up such as tracking down the culprit and then suing them since the individual may not necessarily be in the same country as yourself. Regardless, there are rules and if you flout them, then consequences will follow.
Whether those consequences are significant, nominal or nothing will depend on the situation. In a lot of countries in Europe and I think the same applies to the US to an extent, if you don’t assert your legal rights, you may be found by a court of law that you have effectively given up any IP rights in the work product. Overall, I do agree though, nobody should encourage others or allude to them deliberately breaking the licence terms. In some countries, they may find themselves liable (for example, in the UK a third party can be liable for knowingly causing another to breach their contract terms).
I presume Bambu Labs has pre-defined licence terms to assist creators who may not be familiar with intellectual property rights but based on this thread, it seems like there is a gap missing. Maybe that gap is for Bambu to allow an option for ‘custom’ licence terms with freeform text field that allows the creator to set those terms themselves - feedback to them may . Though it would be sensible for anyone who has no legal knowledge to get independent legal advice to avoid mistakes of inadvertently giving up anything they shouldn’t.
On a final interesting note, the MakerWorld Terms of Use states:
MakerWorld does not grant any licence to the Users for the User Content, when uploading User Content to the Services for publication and distribution, the User is required to select a type of License from a set of License Terms including without limitation the Creative Commons License (CCLs) (the “Free Licenses ”). The User acknowledges that the Free Licences are irrevocable after publication of the User Content.
That last sentence would give me cause for concern as a creator on MakerWorld. It effectively states that you cannot revoke a licence ever once it is given, even if the user knowingly breaches the licence terms you can’t stop them from doing it again. To me, that’s some lazy writing by the lawyers at Bambu because they should have at least included wording that allowed licences to be revoked if the user breached the licence terms. Funny how Bambu says they don’t grant any licence to users for the creator’s content and yet here they are granting an irrevocable licence!
2 Likes
There’s a reason that most contracts and licenses are much longer than a paragraph. There’s a lot of gray area that runs afoul of consumer protection laws.
This topic was discussed at length before too. Someone contacted Bambu at some point too, to which they said.
That’s the question I asked. Everyone seems to imply that it’s legally wrong for a grandparent to give a 3d printed model to their grand child.
OPs question started with this.
You tell me if I don’t like the license terms, then I should not use it. So help me understand then, do these license terms prevent me from printing these tracks for my nephew?
1 Like
I am perfectly happy for anyone who prints any of my models to give them to friends or family or to hand them out free of charge for charity.
The expectation that the only people who can benefit from my works MUST have physically downloaded and printed it themselves on equipment they own is ridiculous.
If people wish to sell my models, I have commercial terms that I rigorously defend as will my estate on my passing.
If you have a problem with that, keep it to yourself as I have stated my belief, you do you.
2 Likes
This user content is licensed under a Standard Digital File License.
You shall not share, sub-license, sell, rent, host, transfer, or distribute in any way the digital or 3D printed versions of this object, nor any other derivative work of this object in its digital or physical format (including - but not limited to - remixes of this object, and hosting on other digital platforms). The objects may not be used without permission in any way whatsoever in which you charge money, or collect fees.
Assuming the licence terms above are what you’re talking about, I think it’s pretty clear what you can’t do. The keywords being you shall not … transfer, or distribute in any way the digital or 3D printed versions of this object.
There are no definitions of what a transfer or distribution is but I would think most modern courts will normally, as a general rule, adopt the ordinary meaning of those words. Kudos to anyone who can come up with a clever argument that giving the 3d printed object to a third person would not count as a transfer or distribution of that object.
It also goes as far as saying you can’t create derivative works, which is to modify or enhance the object in any way. In other words, what you see is what you get.
1 Like
@SlobRob So in simple terms, it’s your understanding that the license disallows me from printing that toy for my nephew?
2 Likes
That’s not the way I read this particular license (though I’ve seen that in others). In this license, “derivative work” is part of a bigger sentence:
(Portion deleted to make my interpretation of intent clearer).
To me, this particular license looks like it’s saying you can’t distribute or transfer derivative works, not that you can’t do them (for personal use).
Again, not legal advice but that is how I would interpret it. It is a personal licence for the user who is downloading the file and that’s the extent of the licence permission you have for using this particular file.
I can’t profess to be an expert in all countries but many have universally adopted terms and meaning. So unless there are any exceptions such as consumer rights or other laws that prohibit this personal licence, that’s all you get.
1 Like
Okay, so, follow up question. In simple terms, it’s your understanding that the license would also disallow a husband from giving such a print to his wife?
1 Like
That’s a fair point and I’m not saying you are incorrect, but when you draft legal terms punctuation matters and the use of a comma in the wrong place can completely change the meaning and interpretation of a clause. One could think your way and suggest it all forms part of the same thing i.e. not to sell, transfer, distribute etc. or it might be interpreted independently as a separate condition i…e not to create any derivative work of the object whether digital or physical.