The Last line. (25 characters)
There are more uses than giving prints away. For example you canât use them as movie/video props, or as tool for your job, because you get money for that. Actually no youtuber (who earns money with their videos) is allowed to show those models in their videos (without explicit permission)âŚ
SDFL indeed prohibits giving away prints (distribute in any way the digital or 3D printed versions of this object), and it prohibits any other commercial use ( be used without permission in any way whatsoever in which you charge money, or collect fees, like the examples noted above).
The latter is also valid for CC-NC licenses: No use that is in any way connected to money.
1 Like
Iâm guessing somewhere there is a language where you can interpret:
X is forbidden.
Y is forbidden.
to mean:
You can do X as long as it isn't Y.
But I donât know exactly which language that would be.
Blockquote You can still print the objects and give them away. You are not collecting money or fees,
No, it says you canât sell them. Earlier it also says you canât âdistribute in any wayâ the â3D printed versions of the objectâ. That would include giving them away.
Indeed, I concur with the opinion that it doesnât even allow you to print a copy for yourself. All this license lets you do is admire their work.
1 Like
Not here for sure. X is forbidden, and Y, a more specific version of X, is really forbidden.
This âlicenseâ doesnât seem to grant anything.
1 Like
Blockquote Here is the thing, they can sue you for any profits made from (the print), but if you gave it away, there are no profits, so it is a waste of time and resources. I am still looking at the âcan I print this for a friend/family member point of viewâ not can I print this and sell it.
Iâm not a lawyer. It doesnât say you can print it for a friend. (It rather explicitly says you canât).
They canât sue you for your profits. But they could sue you for the hypothetical profit they could have made if youâd bought it from their etsy shop and gave it to your friend. Even if they donât have an etsy shop.
This is a horrendously stupid âlicenseâ. Clearly they didnât bother having a US lawyer look at what they were writing.
AFAICT, it doesnât even allow me to make a copy for myself. (Normally thereâd be a clause saying something like âyou can make n copies for your own personal useâ.
By printing, weâre pretty much depending on âfair useâ, but who knows what a court would think. Especially if they were just using the listing as an ad to refer to their etsy store.
Blockquote I donât think that if you (hypothetical, not you personally), a copyright holder, upload a model to makerworld and I print it, then you can successfully sue me, because your explicit intent in that upload was to allow me to print it. (Talking about US here).
Iâm not a lawyer. What if the listing told you to seek out their etsy store? Or inquire about licenses? Iâm not sure you could successfully argue that their intent was to share more than the license said.
IMO: This is a really stupid license for makerworld to offer.
When you buy a book, youâre allowed to read it, and you can sell the copy that you bought. You canât make photocopies and sell those. And selling your used copy is covered by the First Sale Doctrine.
He hasnât given us, we havenât purchase, any rights, so we canât use that as an example IMO.
They stole it verbatim from printables, the site they cloned. Well, almost verbatim, they left off the 1st sentence, the clause that allows personal use.
1 Like
At least in US law, you canât put just anything in a license. It has to be reasonable and enforceable.
In your example, not only would that be unenforceable but it would also be unreasonable. You canât reasonably expect a person to be able to fully verify a personâs name is Bob without an unreasonable amount of effort, nor could it be enforceable because you canât prove that a person didnât just lie and claim their name is Bob.
Another example would be that you canât put in a license âby downloading this, you sign away rights to your soul and first born childâ.
But I do see youâre trying to make a point using an oversimplification. I just wanted to add a bit of extra clarity there.
Yes, I was being intentionally hyperbolic to illustrate that the license, governed by contract law, was independent of the copyright and copyright law.
But to clarify your clarification, I believe you are mistaken. Reasonableness isnât required in a contract, terms are sometimes one-sided and arbitrary. I just donât like those goofy gawking Bobs, and if you donât feel comfortable in checking every ID of every person you give a copy away to you shouldnât agree to the license. Itâs your choice to accept the license, you need to determine if the burdens and costs imposed are worthwhile to you, and if not just walk away.
Certainly if the license terms had illegal or unconscionable requirements it would be unenforceable such as your â1st born childâ example. But the âno one named Bobâ was not a good illustration of the limits of contract law, because, well, some people just donât like Bob.
Well, yes and no.
You can *technically* put some âunreasonableâ things in your license, like in your example, but those kinds of things simply cannot be enforced and would not hold up in court. People really should not respect those kinds of terms, in my opinion, even if it may be something you can âtechnicallyâ put in a license.
Additionally, you cannot put entirely unreasonable things in a license, like things that are impossible. For example, you canât require a person to create a new color that has never been seen before.
I doubt any of these models are âcopyrightedâ. So if it hinges on that???
Sorry, I was responding to a different thread! Iâm going to edit out my previous reply, Iâm sure it was confusing. Someone was asking about commercial use of the tools output, and I thought your question was in that thread.
To answer your question, copyright is automatic in the US. No registration is necessary.
1 Like
Thank you! Much appreciated. After more thought, I think I was confusing a patent with a copyright.
1 Like
So am I allowed to share my 3d printed files or not?
As you have chosen to provide little context to share, you donât make answering your question easy.
If you have a model and upload it to MakerWorld or any other service, that is perfectly allowable, it is your work (assuming it is) and you can share it.
You must select a license type that determines how others can use your work. The subject of this post is the Standard Digital License and I will focus on that.
If you specify the Standard Digital Licence, you are allowing others to benefit from the work they print for themselves, they cannot sell the work, claim it as their own or share your files under any circumstances.
You may allow commercial terms under a separate agreement, for example with a Patreon account where people pay a monthly subscription for a continuing right to sell your models so long as those payments continue and not if they stop.
If you choose to join the Exclusive program that MakerWorld has, and your models are not excluded you may not share them on any other platform. You do gain additional points for that restriction.
Iâm assuming you are asking about files you download from Makerworld that had the âStandard Digital File Licenseâ.
The SDFL is very short and unambiguous. It says no sharing. So no, if you want to follow the license you are not allowed to share the prints.
It does seem very unlikely that a creator would choose to enforce those terms if you gave away some prints to your friends.
Thank you for reaching out. I am not selling them for anything and I am a bambu handy user. Although they intend to mean that. What they are trying to say from the information Iâve found is that they donât want you to sell them for profit with no credit. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Yes, unfortunately you are wrong. There is no justification to ascribe some other meaning to something so short, clear and unambiguous. It just means what it says. I understand you are disappointed with that restriction, but trying to make exceptions to a license by assuming âwhat they are trying to sayâ instead of âwhat they did sayâ would allow anyone to justify anything. Feel free to send the creator a message asking if you can give it to your friends, if they say yes that is totally valid.
I understand. Thank you for your help. Would the creator actually respond? if so, where would i be able to send a message to him?