Following on from the recent Licensing issues I have a question.
I made some very simple caulk spreaders. http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1014324 those are shared with a NC license. This is something a plumber or builder would use around bath tubs and buying them costs a few bucks but printing yourself is a few cents. The NC Idea is around these things not being printed for sale but if someone print this himself is completely within the rules, but uses them form a paying job that’s commercial use. - what is the right thing to do?
Well, from my more recent research it seems that the files are under copyright, but utilitarian uses cannot be copyrighted. Meaning that if it not art, then it can’t be copyrighted. I don’t know how this translates into derivatives (3d printed objects), but since its not art then the license might not apply. I’m not a lawyer though.
In the end If you’re worried, you can design your own. Or contact the designer for permission.
Why NC and not completely open?
The intent of the designer was probably to discourage the production of these for retail sale. They were obviously designed to be used and it’s difficult to distinguish between a tradesman and DIYer in that respect.
You could ask the designer if it’s OK and if he/she says no then you could probably design something yourself in a few minutes. Just publish yours somewhere so that others don’t have the same problem. You might want to round a few edges etc. Just to make it sufficiently different from any other design.
Much of the fiasco was about someone not respecting -nc, so I don’t understand what you’re doing. -nc doesn’t really protect anything, you have to be willing and able to fight for it. You’re at the mercy of the person using the design. Spreaders are very cheap and simple anyways, once you get good at a program, drawing that takes less than a minute. I found one silicone detail kit that was $6 for 8 pieces, lots of different radius and bevel sizes.
Kind of the point I was making, I drew them and shared them, the nc license is my default but it’s one of those things that did only take 5 minutes to draw and 10 to print. I actually did because I needed one myself. As noted it’s not exactly hard or unique. So I don’t particularly mind how this design is used. But the truth at the end of the day is morally how many people would consider it wrong to use it outside the intended scope, so it’s a principle thing. And as for it being simple I created a 2 line powershell script to bring up a VPN connection, anyone with basic knowledge can do it. But how many people actually can. It takes less than a minute but involved my skill to implement so it’s the same as being able to actually draw something in cad no matter how simple. - it was just something I thought about when I saw it this morning and wondered about what others would think of it.
In this specific case, there is no copyrightable element in the design and thus any CC license is completely null / meaningless / invalid / pointless. Copyright only applies to original works of art or authorship, not modeling up a functional tool without embellishment. The CC license is entirely built on the foundation of traditional copyright, so without a valid copyright, there cannot be a valid CC license.
At best, the CC-NC declaration in this case is a signaling device that the author would prefer certain limits on the model’s use. But it’s technically an incorrect and meaningless use of CC.
I’m repeating what a lawyer said, so I feel pretty confident that it’s accurate.
Not to mention that it’s probably different in other countries.
Agree with @Ryan_Carlyle , since there is no artistic element in the design, or trademarks, then the design itself cannot be copyrighted. That’s what patents are for. What is possibly under copyright is the file, but not the design expressed by the file. Someone could take the design, and copy it exactly and not violate any copyright. What gets tricky is can you copyright a file that doesn’t contain copyrighted material. Or if that file is used to create a derivative can the derivative fall under that copyright (a 3d print is essentially a derivative, but since it is a derivative of the design then it’s possible it doesn’t fall under the file copyright, if a file copyright applies in the first place).
IMHO, the point of the nc, is to prevent some one from making and selling them. I can see the point, but even if YOU are using it on a commercial job, YOU aren’t selling it, just your time using it. And, as it was pointed out, you could probably buy something cheaper with other features. Personally, I have some caulking to do, so I may print a few to try them out…
Open Source is the way to go!
@Keith_Applegarth it’s not just about sales, the Creative Commons site has language about commercial use. So using it in marketing or even internally within a commercial business non-compliant with the license.
Actually, these are gimmick to sell at wallyworld and the like… True professionals I’ve seen lay down two strips of painters tape top and bottom of gap, caulk the gap, run their fingers down the seem and then let it stiffen a bit and pull off the tape. Final wet finger smooths it nice and flat.
time to design a manure spreader
@Roger_Tee let’s keep politics out of this, lol…