CAD, Copyright and Creative Commons – Part 1, the infringement saga continues written by Oliver Smith, a consultant with Stratasys Strategic Consulting.
Definitely worth reading and looking forward to part two.
http://consulting.stratasys.com/2016/02/cad-copyright-and-creative-commons-the-infringement-saga-continues
I hope they come to their senses, but I doubt they will. It amazes me that a group of college graduates can have such a stupid interpretation of IP laws.
I’m not too surprised. People can come up with some really funny interpretations of things sometimes. The key is to decide what you want to be the outcome, then reason backward to a justification.
Your interpretation’s only basis in reality may be your desire for it to be true, but that never seems to stop anyone who has done that from being absolutely sure it’s correct.
“Wharton University” isn’t a thing… it worries me when legal advice is provided by an author that doesn’t check facts. 
One day karma will strike back and their ‘original works’ will be appropriated by someone they can’t reach and give them the 2 fingered digital salute.
There is such a thing as Wharton School of Pennsylvania @Tim_Elmore
Yes, of course - but that’s not “Wharton University”. @Evan_Nguyen
It doesn’t amaze me at all tbh. We live in a self entitled society, with a sense of entitlement that has seemingly grown with the growth of the Internet. How many copyrights are infringed on a daily basis. Movies and music downloaded for “free”, photos “borrowed” for blogs and articles. Is it such a suprise that it’s happened to the 3D printing realm? And is their attitude that surprising?
@Louise_Driggers you might get a legal precedent named after you… how exciting!
@Ian_Holden The salient point in this saga is the commercial exploitation, not the copying.
Louise is perfectly happy for people to download and copy her art (and we are grateful for that), but she has attached conditions - conditions she is legally entitled to attach, and these Just3DPrint scumbags are blatantly violating those conditions.
@Tim_Elmore the author states clearly and correctly the Wharton school of Pennsylvania University
@Richard_Earl a correction has been made, previously the article stated “Wharton University”.
It’s just lovely to see that the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania lists on its VIP Companies page, Just 3D Print !
http://vip.wharton.upenn.edu/currentcompanies.aspx
The byline for Just 3D Print says:
Just 3D Print provides affordable custom parts by utilizing the amazing technology of 3D printing.
Perhaps it should say:
Just 3D Print provides affordable custom parts by commercially exploiting copyrighted artworks without permission.
One has to wonder at the quality of their business courses if these Just 3D Print idiots - fresh business graduates - don’t even have a basic grasp of copyright laws.
By maintaining the VIP status of Just 3D Print, the University of Pennsylvania is severely tarnishing the reputation of their Wharton business school, and of the whole University.
They’re not using VIP as “very important person(s)”, it’s an acronym for Venture Initiation Program. It seems to be some combination of practical curriculum and startup incubation, it’s a specific program they’re enrolled in.
@Stephen_Baird
Perhaps the University of Pennsylvania could make a case study from startups in their Venture Initiation Program, titled:
“How to quickly destroy your business reputation by using other people’s Intellectual Property without permission.”
You’d think that a school like Wharton would have a rather prolific ethics department to consult with. Can’t help thinking about Caroline Channing.
Oh joy, I think we should implement some sort of DRM in 3D models. And some sort of youtube copyright system where one can put up strikes against you because your beer opener looks sort of like the design they have made. It is unavoidable i guess.
If the program is giving aid to the rip off artists, then that’s another avenue to pursue. The venture program operators might not know what the J3DP character is up to.
This is a nice write-up, but it states something that I think people are confusing in these discussions:
From my understanding, Creative Commons isn’t a copyright, it’s a license for use. Much like you agree to terms and conditions when you download free software, you are agreeing to the license specified when downloading the files. It states as much on the thingiverse download pages “By downloading this thing, you agree to abide by the license:”
Whether or not you have a copyright claim on the cad (perhaps not), the art (of course), or what have you, that is a separate issue from the fact that just3dprint agreed to the license terms when they downloaded the files, and this is the primary point of violation they are exhibiting in their ebay store.