@Mark_Rehorst To me the point is that by licensing it as -NC, you are saying you do not want people to do something specific with it. And if they do it anyway, it may not be illegal, but it means the do not respect the art, they do not respect the artist, and they are assholes.
Not everything is about lawyers.
Who is this scum bucket? Doesn’t make you mad? Makes a whole load of us mad on your behalf 
Keel hauled under a barnacle encrusted hull 100 times would be getting off lightly just for the rudeness. I wonder if theres a way the community could impact some real life karma upon this douche!
Ebay can be quite active on IP infringement and have a dept dedicated to it. Contact ebay, tell them a seller is infringing your IP and copyright and you will be directed to a link (im trying to find it but cant recall what button it was on the site) or relevant dept, show the proof of this copyright ie the license and original artwork posting, and it can be dealt with by them very quickly <48hrs.
I had a dream once that every print made of my dragons came alive and would bbq anyone I asked them to:-)
@Mark_Rehorst This is not “touching”, this is “selling and making a profit off somebody’s art when they explicitely asked you not to”. Those people are exhibiting bad behavior, they should be shamed and ridiculed by the community, until they give up. Maybe you can’t change human nature, but you definitely can get people to behave better.
@Mark_Rehorst Or quit giving nice stuff away for free. Unless they would stand to make a great deal of money from piracy, even a very small charge will discourage people from distributing stuff (“I paid for it!!!”). Of course, it restricts who gets to play with it but…
@Nathan_Walkner Well I don’t like -NC, and work released as -NC doesn’t even qualify as “Open-Source”, by definition. But I think that if the author asked that the work not be used commercially, it doesn’t matter if it’s “legally” valid : the person that goes against the author’s wish is an asshole, end of story.
Sell one yourself on eBay and under cut their prices. Badly.
Then make sure your listing says “official” and make sure it mentions your account on Thingiverse. And say that all others are inferior.
Force them to lower their prices. Laugh maniacally. Have fun with this.
Remember, eBay asks if “you sell one like this.” The answer will then be “Hell yeah!” So you get seen as an alternative to his listing!
ok so everyone who agrees this is wrong just click the report item link and report it as a copyright violation of the name game of thrones, and license violation of aria the dragon. when ebay gets a flood of reports they will do something.
I know - I was trying to do something nice:-) Might very well open the “Official Loubie 3D Printing Shop” on eBay though.
Lets ignore the validitiy of the non-commercial use clause when sharing work on Thingiverse, the seller fails to give proper attribution to the original creator of the work which is supposedly fundamental to open source.
They are leading you to believe that they designed Aria the Dragon and visiting their website will likely just lead you to other stolen designs they are claiming credit for, rather than linking to more of Louise’s work.
Good luck finding a resolution.
@Louise_Driggers do it and then outsource the production to china so you can beat their price 
Lots of good arguments here. Is a CC-NC license enforceable? Not in practice, obviously, because the cost is prohibitive.
Are people who violate CC-NC assholes? Yep, definitely.
Does CC in general have legal validity? Yes, a CC license is a COPYRIGHT USAGE LICENSE and retains the exact same protections as any other type of copyright license (in the US, anyway). The 3d model itself is instantly copyrighted by virtue of creation as a creative work – and that does not change at all when you add a CC license.
CC does not place your work in the public domain. That’s ludicrous. Even the CC0 “waive all rights” mark is arguably not binding as a public domain dedication. It’s actually incredibly difficult for a living content creator to sever their IP rights.
All the CC license does is establish terms under which you give people advance permission to copy your copyrighted work. If people are copying the copyrighted work in ways that violate the CC license terms, they are violating the copyright in general, exactly the same as if the model were not CC licensed at all. So you can send DMCA take-down notices to the host (ebay in this case) and they are obligated to take down the “copies” of the work.
The remaining open question here is whether a 3d print of a model is a copy of the model. Related US legal precedent (buildings made from copyrighted blueprints, etc) would say YES, printing an object model is a form of copying the model, and thus printing a copyrighted model without permission would violate the model’s copyright. But the courts have not explicitly ruled on this specific case yet.
@Louise_Driggers I would suggest not putting your designs on public sharing sites.
Have a site of your own which prevents hot-linking of your STLs and so requires manual downloading.
The act of downloading could trigger a dialog requiring the downloader to acknowledge they will not use the STL in a commercial manner i.e. for their personal use only. You can also include a non-redistribution clause.
The point being that if they have to make these agreements with you before they can download then you have a stick to beat them with when they don’t honour your terms.
A few legal matters:
-
Copyright is automatic. If you made the art, you immediately own the copyright without any application to any government or other agency. All you need to do to legally assert copyright is prove that it’s your art. (Patents, Registered Designs, and Trademarks are much more complicated than Copyright).
-
Any profits made by the party that infringes copyright belong to the copyright holder (you), but you do need to bring a civil lawsuit first to claim your money.
-
The infringing party can be forced by the presiding judge to cover all the legal costs of the copyright holder, especially when the infringement is this blatant.
The legal system strongly favours the copyright holder in Australia, so long as you can prove the art is yours - which is easy in your case.
But how this works in jurisdictions outside Australia is another matter…
Best of luck!
I agree that a DMCA takedown is the best course of action to take right now.
If you copied a model from a game and printed it out, you would be in violation of copyright, this is no different. A license was applied to the works regardless of the distribution method.
Warhammer 40k has precedent in this, taking down models that were used in this fashion. Even Pokémon has precedent in this. The license dictates the use pf the files, and these files were used to produce something for commercial gain, violating the agreement. If the seller had used the model to create a screenshot, which was then turned into a poster, the commercial sale of that poster would still be in violation. Any commercial use of derivitive works, whether a video, picture, 3d print, or other form is a violation of the license.
@Nathan_Walkner You’re right that functional designs aren’t protected by copyright. A CC license on a simple bracket or adapter has no validity because there’s no creative work for an underlying copyright. But THIS specific case is a pure work of art with no functional purpose, so I think the copyright should be pretty unambiguous.
The argument about implying something by posting the model is bogus. The right to reproduce here was EXPLICITLY granted in exactly limited form by the selection of CC-BY-NC license. That is literally the declaration of terms under which the copyrighted work may be copied. By downloading a copy of the model, you agree to the license terms. Then, by physically reproducing the model using a 3d printer, you are again agreeing to the license terms. By selling that resulting physical manifestation of the underlying copyrighted design, you are violating the license terms you agreed to when you copied the model.
The legal issue here isn’t the authority to sell chattel, it’s the fact that by selling the object as chattel, the copyright terms used to download and print the model were violated.
@Louise_Driggers the problem is that you have a copy write to the CAD file and the seller is not selling the CAD file, they are selling the print of the CAD file. So in reality they are not even violating your copy write. If they were selling the CAD file they would be violating your copywrite.
The license agreement you issued is licensing your copywrite.
You do also have a copywrite of the object you made due to the picture you published however.
Moral of the story is that you have no protection and the NC tag is a gentlemen’s agreement, not legally binding… I am sorry that a jerk is profiting off of your hard work.
Note it is the publishing date that earns a copywrite not the creation. This is because publishing can be verified
@Louise_Driggers YESSSS!!! GO TO WAR!!! VENGEANCE!!! If you can’t do it feasibly with lawyers, DO IT WITH MARKET PRESSURE!
This shop doesn’t seem to have very many customers wanting to buy printed art… So you might as well have “three” in your inventory, sell it at half price, and badmouth him in a passive aggressive manner. (and occasionally “pay” a friend to “buy” one off of you… so you can uptick your sale counts! hehehe) Then when you get actual bids or purchases, let the money roll in.
@Camerin_hahn I am very certain that you are wrong about publication being required for copyright.
If an artist paints a picture and never shows or sells it, or writes a song and never releases a single or an album, they still own the copyright.
You seem to be getting confused between patents / registered designs and copyright.
Copyright is much simpler, and the law (in Australia) strongly favours the artists who create works of art.
Louise owned the copyright on Aria from the moment she created the artwork, and that would be the case even if she had never published Aria in any form.
Note that using a digital process to create a work of art does not invalidate copyright. Aria is still a work of art and thus is automatically protected by copyright law.