Is it just the threat of being sued that guides your behavior?
If some license, whether it is a CC license or the Standard License, says don’t do X, what’s the harm in asking for permission first? If you are correct, you will never be rejected.
A follow-on question. Does a model maker have the right to restrict how his models are used as a precondition to getting to use them for free?
You mentioned giving a model to your grandchildren and the Standard License, could we use that as an example? What if the model maker said “as the precondition to using my models for free, you agree not to give sell it or give it away”?
Exactly what would the license look like if you wrote it down?
I don’t accept the premise that there is any license available that restricts the giving of a present from a grandparent to a grand child.
What about me giving a 3D print to my daughter do I need to ask permission for that too?
When someone applies a non commercial license, what they are really meaning is that they don’t want other people to benefit financially from their hard work and I would include not giving something away to lots of people to somehow get around the license.
This train of thought is absurd. Plus there are usually other provisions in law that supersede the license.
I am all for protecting rights, like I use Fusion 360 for free and abide by their terms about how much money I can make - I happen to give my designs away for free to abide by that license that Autodesk gives me.
PS
Is it just the threat of being sued that guides your behavior?
Some general ramblings, not in reply to anyone in particular.
I’m a known critic of the Standard License, so I’m not going to defend it.
I am going to defend the idea of licenses and reject the idea of simply ignoring some parts of them just because you are unlikely to be sued. That is not the way. Well for some people that is the way. Try to be better.
If you think a license clause is confusing, objectionable, or stupid, or if you just want to bend one of the rules for some other reason, it’s really no effort to write the model maker and ask. They only have a limited range of licenses they can choose from, so it’s possible that none of them are exactly what they would have written from scratch, given the opportunity.
Here are some reasons already mentioned that you might ask for an exception:
You want to give away Standard License prints.
You want to commercially use (but not sell) CC-NC prints in your business.
It’s also not the responsibility of a model maker to have what you consider a “valid reason” for licensing things the way they do. Some modelers make stuff for fun. Some do it as their livelihood, and every one you give away is potentially one less they might sell in their Etsy store. If you want to give one to your grandchild and the license says you can’t, just ask for permission. It’s just basic respect for someone who is GIVING YOU SOMETHING FOR FREE.
(edits: By using granddaughter Herb might get the idea I was referring to him, I had just read his reply to me and was thinking of it, but I didn’t mean him specifically. Changing that. And though any unfortunate coincidence of timing, R.S. replied while I was writing this and what I wrote might be interpreted as mocking him. It wasn’t, it was mocking the absurdity of thinking those situations were interchangeable. Deleted.)
I want to say the message above is not in reply to you, I was editing it while you were making your post. I probably would have written in differently reading your reply.
OK, so you don’t accept that premise. Where is it falling apart? You no doubt accept the idea that a model maker, could, if they wanted to, intend to have a license that embodies the idea “you can’t give the models away — even to grandchildren”. Right? It’s their model, and they can do that, right?
Well what would THAT license look like if you wrote it down? Does it really need to say “you shall not distribute – even to grandchildren” in it? I think it’s the same Standard License as before. Or are you saying every possible category of gift recipient needs to be enumerated for you to consider it valid?
Or is this a “no one can tell me what to do with my stuff” kind of thing? Sure, I get it, but realize what you are saying. You are saying “hey model dude, your stuff really isn’t yours, I’m just going to take it and use it how I like! So there!”. Remember the model isn’t yours to start with, it’s perfectly with the maker’s rights to dictate exactly how you can use it. If you don’t agree with his rules the alternative is that you can simply just not download it. Or are you suggesting otherwise?
No offense taken at all. Trust me, I’ve got much thicker skin than that. In my case, the dragon(s) that I gave away, I later purchased rights to sell (which I haven’t done yet, just building inventory, designing my online store, and waiting for a spot at the market I want).
With respect to giving a model to a family member and not about giving lots of copies away for free, taking reality into account, While I agree with the principle of a model maker’s right to control their work, the reality is that most people would find it absurd to impose restrictions on something like gifting a 3D print to a family member. A license may prohibit distribution, but no court will enforce such a restriction on a personal gift, especially when it involves family members like grandchildren or children.
I’m not disputing the license itself, but it is important to acknowledge that personal use or gifting should not automatically be seen as an infringement. In many legal systems, personal, non-commercial transfers (like gifting a 3D print) are often overlooked or deemed acceptable unless specifically forbidden by the license.
So, while the license may technically prohibit distribution, this doesn’t necessarily reflect how it would be handled in practice, either by courts or in terms of public opinion.
I’d like to add that in some countries, local laws explicitly grant full rights to use and share objects you own. So, even if the license outright prohibits gifting the item, the local law supersedes the license, making such restrictions unenforceable.
That relates to one thing I was going to mention (eventually, now’s as good a time as any);
I think some of the ambiguity (and I believe there is some ambiguity) in the license agreement is that it’s trying to create a license that has at least the appearance of validity, not only in the every state in the US, but in every country that has access to MakerWorld.
And this is perhaps where those who may not be legally qualified or have an awareness of IP law could be caught out. For example, the Berne Convention is an international treaty signed by about 180 countries, including the US, which aims to protect certain IP rights such as copyright and other artistic rights.
The idea is that an individual who creates protected works in their home country will be protected automatically in each member country under the convention. Member countries are committed to ensuring that the framework for protected rights under the Berne Convention do not conflict with local laws, albeit the remedies and enforcement may be different for each country.
Many countries I’m aware of, certainly have laws in place, or at least as a matter of public policy, it is well understood that someone who owns the goods will have the ability to resell or distribute the goods that they own. However, there is a difference between selling something and licensing something. The latter being that ownership of the goods or work product remains with the owner and instead you are granted permission to use the goods based on the licence conditions.
Of course it is also possible to purchase ownership of the IP but then that moves from licensing to selling in which case you would own the IP rights and you can do what you want with it (if the local country does not prohibit the sale of the IP). That goes back to the point about several suggestions that in the US the Doctrine of First Sale where if a copyright owner sells their IP, they can’t prevent the re-sale of it (not a US expert, but my general understanding). But in MakerWorld, creators are not actually selling their IP.
Edit: For anyone who wants to delve into further there appears to be a US Supreme court case (Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.) that suggested the First Sale Doctrine doesn’t apply to digital downloads, only something that is on a physical medium, which would potentially scupper the First Sale defence.
Depends on the designer. Many have BuyMeACoffee links or Patreons where you can purchase a subscription. MakerWorld introduced their own license system as well.
Selling IP and licensing it are two completely totally different things. When you buy a book, you are not buying IP, you are buying a copy of the work and you are restricted by law on what you can do with that copy. In particular you may not make your own copies of it and sell them. First sale doctrine means that you can sell that book, that’s it. And this particular piece of law was made in a court, for the particular case, it wasn’t a law written by congress where you can maybe reason about how it applies and to what (and then proven wrong in the court anyway, because lawyers think differently from regular people).
What regular people can do is read the license terms and follow them, and/or get an advice from a lawyer. Anything else is just lawyering without a law degree, which most often leads to incorrect results. Of course, there is a also the choice of breaking the law, which regular people do all the time (and I am not judging, I may or may not have done that myself), using their own moral compass/risk estimation/not giving a damn/etc. But it’s important not to pretend that you can read the license, disregard it, and still claim that it’s all legal because reasons (this sentence is not directed at @SlobRob).
Was any of your response directed at me or just a general comment? If it was, the first paragraph of your reply just seems to be a regurgitation of what I have previously said so I’m not sure what to say in response.
The problem with following them is that more often than not you will get a different interpretation depending on who you talk to, unless of course it is clear cut. The SDFL is in my opinion clear enough as to what you can and can’t do.