What would be nice if makerworld did partnership with temu to automatically track and require commercial license
"### Building a Better Marketplace Together
Temu is open to collaborate with stakeholders including rights owners, IP associations, regulators and IP vendors to build a better marketplace. Since January 2024, Temu has engaged with more than 2,000 brands across 26 countries through its Brand Collaboration Team, sharing its IP enforcement mechanisms directly."
Since makerworld is not the rights holder, how would that work?
Well id consider them stakeholder in some regard.
And working it would be pretty simple.
Here’s how it could work:
Pretty simple system, if makerworld has access to the temu IP enforcement mechanisms.
I do not think this will work, i removed countless listings from Temu and always looked at the sellers listings. It was almost never a majority of 3d prints but always a collection of products they buy from chinese manufactures and sell through Temu.
That said, since the diversity of sellers was so great, i highly suspect that there are printfarms that print these items that are sold to small resellers on Temu, Ebay and others.
I came to this conclusion because sellers i contacted hinted in that direction.
For example “They did not get it from me and therefore need no commercial license”
So chances are 1 printfarm gets a commercial license for scraps and sell thousands of items to resellers.
And even if you would restrict from reselling, they would just ignore that.
And the resellers don’t want a commercial license because they bought the product and think they don’t need it.
makerworld does very little in terms of license support, it only really takes some action if someone posts on a competing platform like printables or crealty cloud
other than that no action is taken whatsoever, so i wouldn’t count on it 
that being said, the reporting system from Temu is highly responsive and they take actions very fast, definitely one of the fastest turn around times
Well it would work in that system does legwork in finding these listing.
Well they are correct, they don’t need a commercial license.
The person who printed and sold it needs the license, not the reseller.
unless you get a license that is transferrable, then your incorrect, the license is to sell not to print
For other countries I don’t know, but in the US only the first sale needs a license (at least the type of licenses that typically are attached to STLs. You could craft a different license, but this is rarely done).
The reseller (in the US) would not need a license.
that is a pretty weird legislation, i am not familiar with US law, but depending on terms of license that simply does not work, as someone who gets a license to sell prints does not hold any rights over the IP itself, therefore cannot grant license for others (resellers) to sell the design, so this would be a straightforward take down
i guess then the reseller could then make a case against that seller, but again not sure how that would work, unless they would advertise as selling specifically for resale - which they hold no rights to, unless they got a license specifically for those terms, in a B2B approach
As I said, you could craft a license that restricts who the original printer can sell to, and some creators (like .001%) do this.
But for the vast majority of licenses you see on patreon and makerworld this is not the case.
Well, at least in the US, the reseller doesn’t typically need a license. If you have significant assets you should be careful about filing arbitrary takedown notices on platforms such as etsy or ebay, if you cause someone financial harm through a false claim of “unlicensed use” they are well within their rights to go after you. These false claims can snowball in ways beyond simply your prints, if someone gets locked out of the platform and they can no longer sell anything they might end up owning your house.
well of course i would not issue takedowns under any false claims, my claims are also quite straightforward, i own 100% of the intellectual property and the seller is or is not licensed by me - the rights owner, to sell. either you’re licensed or your not, it’s pretty straightforward, but thanks for the inputs anyway, definitely appreciate hearing other points of view
Well, at least in the US, for the type of licenses on makerworld and pateron the requirement of “seller is licensed by me” doesn’t exist. Someone only needs to have purchased it from someone who does have a license and they are free to resell it.
I suspect that is the case in the majority of the world also.
(addendum, I just asked chagpt what this principal is a called outside of the US)
Regions / common-law naming
- European Union / EEA — exhaustion of rights, often exhaustion of the distribution right; you’ll also see “Union exhaustion.” (See InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC art. 4(2).) European Commissionipcuria.eu
- United Kingdom — exhaustion of IP rights (the gov.uk guidance and consultations use this term). GOV.UK+1
- Canada — doctrine of exhaustion / exhaustion of rights (applied in case law across IP areas). Gowling WLG
- Australia — exhaustion doctrine / exhaustion of rights (now explicit for patents after Calidad v Seiko; trade mark parallel imports also framed via exhaustion). IPTALexology
- New Zealand — exhaustion of rights (e.g., Trade Marks Act 2002, s. 97A). Legislation.govt.nz
Continental Europe (a few major languages)
- Germany — Erschöpfungsgrundsatz (“exhaustion principle”), e.g., UrhG § 17(2). Gesetze im Internet
- France — épuisement des droits. dreyfus.fr
- Spain — agotamiento del derecho (often “…de distribución” for copyright). auladerechodeautor.org
- Italy — esaurimento del diritto (EU “Community/Union exhaustion” context). Wikipedia
- Netherlands — uitputtingsbeginsel (“exhaustion principle”). Dentons
- Portugal / Brazil — esgotamento do direito. aopi.pt
- Nordics — Swedish uttömningsprincipen (also “konsumtion” in TM law); Danish konsumption / udtømningsprincippet; Norwegian uttømmingsprinsippet. Christian Engström, PiratCuriaCORE
- Poland — wyczerpanie prawa. SIP Lex
East Asia
- Japan — 権利の消尽 (kenri no shōjin, “exhaustion of rights”). ip.courts.go.jp
- China (Mainland) — 权利用尽原则 (quánlì yòngjìn yuánzé, “principle of exhaustion of rights”). ipr.mofcom.gov.cn
- Taiwan — 權利耗盡原則. lawbank.com.tw
- Korea — 권리소진의 원칙 (“principle of rights exhaustion”). copyright.or.kr
Eurasia / Middle East
- Russia / EAEU — исчерпание (исключительного) права (“exhaustion of the (exclusive) right”), e.g., Civil Code art. 1487. Consultant Plus
- Türkiye — tükenme ilkesi (“exhaustion principle”). TÜRKİYE HUKUK
- Arabic (general) — مبدأ استنفاد حقوق الملكية الفكرية (“principle of exhaustion of IP rights”).
@h3li0 do you live in any of these countries?
surely simply include something like this but I’m no lawyer… just chatgpt lawyer…
“Edited out just incase someone decides use!”
Disclaimer! no am lawyer just putting ideas out there. Just example for ideas not intended to be used just questioning if possible something like this can be included.
Yup.
And as I continuously mentioned, what I said applies for the types of licenses you typically see on makerworld and patreon.
You can craft a custom license.
Do not use TheBreadman’s examples as a template.
No, it’s normal legislation. If someone buys licence from you to print and sell items then they can sell them to whoever is willing to buy the items. The buyer then can sell the item (or the item can be sold, however you’re looking at that).
Let’s use some example… Say Disney sells a licence to a company X that will produce Mikey figurines. That company is then free to sell Mikey figurines to anybody including stores Y that haven’t purchased licence from disney. Stores Y will re-sell the mikey figurine and the disney can’t do jack about that. J Smith can go into store Y, buy mikey figurine and then put it on ebay… It’s all fine and disney’s rights nor the agreement between disney and company X get violated by anybody on the chain for re-selling the mikey figurine.
What IF someone has made something unknowingly similar to something that is being licensed but is 100% the creator of the item? Lets say I made a stand for the AMS all on my own, was never a part of makerwolrd, but it matches an item on Makerworld that has a non commercial license and was selling it online?
As you put it we should be scared and let people get away making money of our hard work and intellectual property, because they might sue you.
In almost every case the (Chinese) wholesale seller has no commercial license.
And in my case if someone like that would apply for a commercial license they can get a custom license of be straight denied as I have denied these kind of sellers in the past. I do not allow bulk reproduction for reselling within the commercial license. So if no wholesale seller has a commercial license the resellers have no license either. I also ask where they are selling in order not to be taken down by accident.
Depends, do you have any assets worth taking? If not, file all the false claims you like, what is the worst that could happen? Go bankrupt?
What I said was:
then
It’s already been demonstrated in this thread that people can be very very convinced they are “in the right” about IP law, yet catastrophically misunderstand even the fundamentals.
Making false claims that impact someone’s business, even by accident or through a misunderstanding of the law are just as actionable as intentionally malicious acts.