You may be better off contacting all the companies like disney and pointing them toward makerworld. Giving prints away to friends for free is still taking from the creator. I cant make my own I-phones and distribute them for free.
2 Likes
My point wasnāt to say people should stop 3D printing, it was to point out how poor the SDFL fits 3D printing, especially when itās the default license for MW uploads.
Nobody is being sued for printing something and giving it to a friend - try and find an example where it became any sort of legal action - you wonāt find anything, anywhere.
Iām going to keep printing parts for friends as gifts, regardless of what the digital license says.
3 Likes
I donāt know if they did or not. I can only assume.
But knowing what kind of people sell these models, and where they sell them, Iām willing to bet they never contacted any of the creators for permission! Iāve seen these people at flea markets and theyād probably put a price tag on their family members if they could. 
1 Like
So āIām going to violate the license because they are never going to sue meā is what you are saying? People have already said elsewhere that they meant literally what the license says, maybe as a joke, but what if someone actually did want that license term? The problem is if someone did intentionally want their model under a license that prohibits redistribution Makerworld gives them that choice because it is literally the standard license. It should be perfectly OK for a creator to select any licensing terms they want and expect you to follow them, even if you think they are silly or unusual or you donāt understand why they would choose those terms. With a limited choice of licenses available most creators are forced into choosing terms they would not otherwise, but that doesnāt mean all of them are.
2 Likes
The funny thing is the reason the licenses and laws even exist is because people abused creatorsā rights and stole and profited.
If people had never ripped off creators wholesale, it wouldnāt even be an issue.
This isnāt on the creators or the licenses they choose. The creators of the designs are the ones on the defensive and were put there by the people who abused IP. And people are still pushing to have guilt-free, liability-free, and fee-free access to other peoplesā work.
Itās hard to sympathize with everyone arguing for access to other peoplesā work and creations. Instead of arguing points that they can never win, the effort might be better spent making their own creations that are theirs and they can do with as they please?
1 Like
I think youāre missing a bit of nuance.
First, Iām going to say that in virtually all cases, the person uploading a model has never actually read the SDFL license that theyāre using for their uploads. Most people never read the terms of service. Second, Iām going to suggest that most people, if made to read the SDFL, wonāt even fully understand the language and wonāt appreciate the implications of it. Third, Iām going to say that in most cases, if a person is made fully aware of the meaning of thr SDFL and itās implications, theyāll say āoh, well I donāt want thatā.
To your point, if someone TRULY wanted the letter of the SDFL to be followed (For whatever bizarre reason), then whatās the point of even uploading a model?
So am I going to infringe the SDFL in the most minor of ways, meaning printing things to give to friends. Itās a calculated risk, and hereās why:
In order to sue for infringement and recover damages, one must 1) prove infringement and 2) prove damages.
What are the damages if I print a part and give it to a friend versus if that friend just prints it for themselves? There are none. Itās a term that simply isnāt suitable for 3D printing.
Now, with that said, I will not sell or otherwise profit from a SDFL part. Iāve done ground-up new designs for such parts many times if I want to be able to sell items. Not copies, not reverse engineered parts, new designs. I also wonāt modify and upload parts if the license prohibits it. Those are all ACTUAL harms to the creator, and I wonāt do them.
2 Likes
I agree with you and would like to add the following:
Many licences are, in fact, invalid on MakerWorld. In certain countries, many paragraphs are not acknowledged at all and violate applicable law.
In principle, anything goes with a licence, even selling oneās soul. Licences only gain legitimacy through the law and its enforcement. I could write a licence with a set of terms and conditions right here and now, but even if millions of people agreed to it, that wouldnāt make it legally valid. Weāve seen this happen so many times before.
How often have companies such as Google, Sony and Nintendo been sued over issues other than terms of service or invalid licences? Invalid licences are frequently the result of violations of applicable law.
We really should ask the fundamental question - which, incidentally, I canāt answer - of whether Bambuās SDFL is valid in the first place.
The next question would then be whether the SDFL is valid in the context of the designer. Likewise, I believe that many licences are invalid if intellectual property rights are infringed or if the idea is already in the public domain. Who checks to see if the designer even has the right to apply the SDFL license to a particular idea or 3D model? No one.
2 Likes
Uh, yeah, then there is thatā¦ 
Very funny CarbonForge!)
Put very simply, if someone is afraid of anyone stealing their intellectual property, then the web is not the place to post it. I reconciled myself in the 1990ās that the Internet is the giant free place for idea exchange. Donāt post it until you decide you can readily part with it.
If someone steals it to sell it, then deal with the individual. Iāve used creators music to add to my video presentations on YouTube. I always asked the person if I could and was never told no. Often thanked for asking. Because their music was also shown as to the composer, title, and a link. So by letting me use it for free, I reciprocated with acknowledgement and source information. (Free advertising)
Of course, in the 1990ās, copyright on digital material was still a head scratcher to the Copyright office. Just as it is to many jailhouse lawyers on the web today due to the confusing way it is written.
I donāt sell anything (yet). But I am in negotiations for badges for my sonās Four-Wheel Drive Club for trail badges. We have several designs under consideration. Do I care if somebody was to modify something I make for the club? Nope. LOL! Nobody is going to get rich off of making custom trail badges for 4 wheelers. Jeep gives them away. Iām inclined too as well. If the members were to donate a spool of filament that would be nice.
I am careful to ask about the origin of the designs they are asking me to 3D print for them. And to get permissionās. Just a CYA for me.
It appears to me that many of Yāall over think and fret way too much. Anybody have evidence of an infringement going to litigation? Yeah, me neither.
2 Likes
Yes, I agree, and your summary is spot on. People who read and understand the text end up having to settle on using a license that (for their purposes) is needlessly over restrictive or they need to choose a less restrictive one which gives up rights they didnāt intend to give up.
Iām assuming you are talking about the no-redistribution clause?
The original one other people thought of was the crazy 3d printed bike helmet. Basically saying itās OK for you scramble your brains but itās not OK for you to pass it on to people who might not be fully cognizant of the risks. So itās not only reasonable that the helmet creator might want to limit redistribution, it seems to be imperative and the only morally correct choice. Does he need to write a new license? Nope, the standard one already explicitly prohibits redistribution.
So how do you separate people who want the standard license to mean āno redistributionā from all those who donāt care? Difficult, without asking them. But Iām not sure there is an alternative unless you are simply ok with the fact that sometimes you are going to be willfully violating an explicitly clear license term that someone really did intend to be binding.
2 Likes