I’ve noticed a few times of late that a model initially published under one Creative Commons license later gets changed to a more restrictive license. Creative Commons doesn’t allow for revoking rights granted under one of their licenses, so it seems to me that changing from one license to another more restrictive license shouldn’t be allowed by the site.
At the very least Makerworld should list the previously used license for the model and what date it changed.
1 Like
Changing the license doesn’t revoke the rights already granted, why would you think changing the license on the site does that?
I am not sure if it does this already, or not.
If not, it should.
I believe it points out that a model had a different licence before, how much detail is attached, I do not know.
I am guessing the OP is seeking sufficient information to be publicly provided that would stop any attempts to benefit retroactively from a change of licence should the designer try to block or criminalise use when in reality the model was obtained before any changes.
1 Like
Exactly. I’m concerned that if I download a model today that allows commercial use and start printing and selling it and the designer later changes the license to a license that does not allow commercial use, it might seem like I’m selling something I shouldn’t be. Or worse, the designer could try to go after me for selling prints of their design without a license.
Along the same lines, I’ve heard of cases where someone remixes a model that allows sharing and remixing, but later the designer of the original model changes the license and sends copyright claims on the remixes.
As best as I can tell, there is no indication on makerworld that a model’s license changed at all, much less when it changed or what license it was previously distributed under.
3 Likes
Make a screenshot of the page at the time you download the model, but the licence conditions can also be seen on it. Create a folder on your shelf at home and file everything there for future reference.
1 Like
Your suggestion is the way! If someone is selling prints for money, they need to be keeping up with the bookkeeping, and licensing proof is part of that management.
3 Likes
That’s certainly an option, but it would make things easier if Bambu didn’t allow changing the license after the fact. Since creative commons licenses don’t allow revocation, there is no reason to make it possible to change to a more restrictive license later.
1 Like
I don’t understand why you keep insisting this, it’s irrelevant. CC doesn’t allow revocation of rights already granted, it has nothing to say about new rights granted under a new license.
I can think of a very simple reason why I want to change to a more restrictive license later, and that would be when I don’t want to offer use under the old license anymore! Why would makerworld be the arbiter of what license I can use?
1 Like
Once you put something in the public domain, there’s no undoing that. My understanding of Creative Commons is that it works the same. Once you distribute something under a CC license, that license is permanent. You can stop distributing the work, but that doesn’t stop others from distributing it and anyone who receives it from using it according to the license it was originally released under.
There’s no point to changing the license after the fact. If you’ve already given others permission to copy and distribute the work without restrictions, it’s too late to put the smoke back in the bottle.
1 Like
Once you put something in the public domain
None of the CC licenses used on makerworld put the work “into the public domain”. I’m sorry, that isn’t correct, they do have a CC0 license. So one of their licenses is public domain.
Once you distribute something under a CC license, that license is permanent.
Only for the people who obtain it under that license.
There’s no point to changing the license after the fact. If you’ve already given others permission to copy and distribute the work without restrictions, it’s too late to put the smoke back in the bottle.
None of the CC licenses in use on makerworld allow someone to “copy and distribute the work without restrictions” (except for the CC0 license, see above).
I can’t figure out why you are fixated on the idea that someone not be allowed to change the license under which their own work is distributed. The people who downloaded it under the old license still have that old license, but that doesn’t apply to people who downloaded it under the new license. For them, the smoke is back in the bottle.
I ask that makerworld not take away the right of how content creators choose to license their work.
1 Like
None of the CC licenses used on makerworld put the work “into the public domain”.
Makerworld literally offers Public domain as a license choice.
None of the CC licenses in use on makerworld allow someone to “copy and distribute the work without restrictions”.
Every CC license allows anyone to copy and distribute the work, as long as they do so under the same terms. Some require attribution, some add restrictions on commercial use or derivative work, but once you put a CC license on it, anyone can distribute your work for free.
The people who downloaded it under the old license still have that old license, but that doesn’t apply to people who downloaded it under the new license. For them, the smoke is back in the bottle.
I think this is where you’re getting mixed up. That’s not how CC works. A CC license applies to the work, not to the individual copy that was distributed. If you release something under a CC license, that license applies to every copy of that work, for as long as that work is under copyright anywhere in the world.
I ask that makerworld not take away the right of how content creators choose to license their work.
Makerworld isn’t taking that right away. The designer is making that choice at the time they choose the license.
And we should be looking to defend people’s right to determine the scope and limitations of how the fruits of their labor are used. And we should look to hold accountable those who violate those rights. Seems simple to me. Of course actually delivering on the promise is a lot harder. I’m glad that doesn’t fall on me.
1 Like
The people who downloaded it under the old license still have that old license, but that doesn’t apply to people who downloaded it under the new license. For them, the smoke is back in the bottle.
I think this is where you’re getting mixed up. That’s not how CC works. A CC license applies to the work, not to the individual copy that was distributed. If you release something under a CC license, that license applies to every copy of that work, for as long as that work is under copyright anywhere in the world.
This is where you are getting mixed up, this is not how licenses work, CC or otherwise. The license is a thing you are given that allows you to use a copyrighted work under certain conditions, it applies to you exactly, it is not attached to every copy of the work. Different people can have different licenses, and just because someone has a more favorable license then you doesn’t mean you can use their license.
1 Like
Different people can have different licenses, and just because someone has a more favorable license then you doesn’t mean you can use their license.
The license explicitly allows copying and distribution of the work, with the original license attached. Yes, if someone gives me a copy of a work that is CC licensed, I get all of the same rights that they had originally. Sure, I could sign a contract with the copyright owner to work under different terms and not to use that license, but that would be me voluntarily giving up rights, it doesn’t change that the license is out there and available to anyone.
It’s covered under the first point in their wiki under Considerations for Licensors and Licensees:
Once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright and similar rights, even if you later stop distributing it.
Read the bit that’s linked. Here, let me quote and highlight the important bit:
CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms.
1 Like
Yup. You can stop distributing, but it doesn’t change the fact that if someone gets a copy of the work, they still have all of the rights granted by the CC license.
That’s not correct. I recommend you to read the CC FAQ.
Some interesting questions :
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-change-the-license-terms-or-conditions
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#Can_I_waive_license_terms_or_conditions
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-happens-if-the-author-decides-to-revoke-the-cc-license-to-material-i-am-using
2 Likes
I’ve read all of that. Interesting that you chose to include that last one though, which explicitly says the author can’t take back the rights.
The CC licenses are irrevocable. This means that once you receive material under a CC license, you will always have the right to use it under those license terms, even if the licensor changes his or her mind and stops distributing under the CC license terms. Of course, you may choose to respect the licensor’s wishes and stop using the work.
I get that the creator can choose to stop distributing under those terms, but it doesn’t stop anyone who already has the license from continuing to distribute it under the original terms. That’s part of the license…
No. Obtaining a copy of a copyrighted work does not atomically grant you a license to use that work, even if other people have the right to use that work under a CC license. Only the license you get does that, and it is entirely possible that you won’t be able to obtain the same license that someone else has.
1 Like