So theres actually a very good reason why they definitely wouldn’t want to, and why a lot of much larger, much more profitable companies/sites don’t.
If Glowforge were to start policing anyone else’s copyright information, then they could be held legally responsible for any copyrighted material they miss. And it would be almost impossible to verify the IP of everything that is posted. They would probably just stop allowing people to post stuff at all before they would be responsible for making sure its all kosher. Which is also why they won’t act on your reports; you’re not the copyright holder.
If you want to read more about it, look up the “safe harbour” provisions under the DMCA.
It’s a shares mindset with both Discourse and Glowforge. We, the users are responsible for moderating the forums ourselves for the most part by utilizing flags. That’s why Discourse doesn’t have a real blocking capability. As mentioned, if there’s something you think shouldn’t be here, flag it. When something gets enough flags, “the community has spoken” so to speak.
Yes… The judge found that Napster didnt qualify as a safe harbour, and therefore was responsible for the content on their service. They also didnt remove content when the copyright holders (Metallica and Dr Dre originally, I think) requested.
Basically, you can’t sell it for commercial use without a property release. But, you can sell it for editorial use (which would be magazine/newspaper articles, news broadcasts, etc.)
The whole copyright/patent issue needs some serious thoughtful rethinking. Originally designed to protect the artist /inventor instead it leaves then vulnerable, and such giants as Disney get to abuse the other side of the coin. I could not work for Disney without signing paperwork that could be construed as allowing them to claim anything I ever invent, and even using the working drawings as examples for my portfolio was verboten.
On the flip side, by leaving the thread intact Glowforge makes it possible for other readers to see the ensuing discussion. This enables more people to learn why you might not want to make/sell copyrighted designs, and it reinforces the notion that such behavior is not encouraged here. There’s some good discussion and info, as well as valuable links that may help people to learn more.
I’ll start believing that GF has respect for the intellectual property of others when/if they abide by the license requirements of the Open Source software they built much of their product’s firmware on.
Not sure why this topic is blowing up again… I haven’t posted in 2 months as I’ve working on other things… but just wanted to let people know that I am trying to get licensing from Lucasfilm. No, it doesn’t cover Disney, but its a start and the Star Wars crafts I’ve made are more important than the few Disney signs I’ve done.
I’ve also heard about a small creators program the Warner Brothers offers… its not licensing but it similar and allows you to sell their properties in exchange for a percentage of what you make.
You can always ask, you may just not like the answer.
I have heard (but not personally verified) that an NFL license (for example) is extremely expensive… Either you need to guarantee $100k/yr in sales, or it’s a $100k/yr fee to start with… Something like that. No one selling stickers at a flea market is going to be able to afford to go legit that way. But the rights holder gets to make the rules.
if you are making this for ‘yourself’ as a hobby, you are fine. Ignore these crazy people.
if you are doing this for yourself, but you also have an online shop, and this image, even though its not for sale, is getting customers attention and bringing them in to your website… you may not be fine.
if you are ‘giving away’ the plans, or the model itself, they may C&D you.
If you are selling these at a convention booth or whatnot, they may C&D you
If you are selling these online and making lots of money, get ready to be sued back to the stone age by the mouse.
You CAN sell this if it is parody. Example, same font, but ‘Pirates of the Pancreas’ (though Rick and Morty may be able to sue you for that one…)
I’m not a lawyer, just an artist who has a lot of experience and observations on people using other peoples IP’s.
In practice you are right and that is certainly how I conduct myself too. That was a good rundown, IMHO.
I think it is a good idea for people to know the letter of the law anyway, so it is healthy to have a thread like this once in a while. Most people have absolutely no idea how copyright really works, and how easy it is to violate the law. (The other day my wife had some kind of business idea that involved using music, so I got to explain that whole mess to her since I learned about it at work.)
If society thinks the laws are unfair, and I think a lot of copyright law is bonkers, we can in theory work to change things… but we have to recognize the problem first.
Yea I totally get it. The laws are full of grey areas and can be very
dangerous to assume things. A friend of mine got a C&D, and her products
banned from a website because she used the hashtag #peeps in the search for
her handmade felt ducklings. She figured they kinda ‘look’ like peeps, and
didn’t consider that people might be confused this was an official product
from that name brand company.
It’s a good conversation to have often, comes up everywhere!
FYI - in real life it’s not actually about the letter of the law.
In my field we work with a legal team that deals with both sides (other IP holders and would be users of our IP). Legal has always maintained that it’s all about risk.
Can the IP holder come after us for a particular use? Sure, if they want to, whether they have any legal standing or not. Does legal think they will though? If not then go ahead. If yes then it’s hard no you can’t do it.
On the flip side - someone is using our IP without permission (selling on demand t-shirts with a logo or character for example). Does it hurt our IP’s brand or cause financial harm? No, then legal usually doesn’t care. Yes, then a C&D letter goes out which is cheap. Actually trying to litigate is expensive so that requires another risk analysis if the letter gets ignored.
In either case, actual laws and statutes don’t figure in until very far down the process.
True, there is a lot to argue in the law and perhaps especially in copyright, which is full of grey areas. But in terms of a person wondering, “can I do this?” I think it is more instructive to lead with, “the law says ________,” and they can then move on to evaluating their specific situation, which may well include a risk analysis.
(As an aside… Since it constantly gets cheaper and easier to get machines to interpret images, I expect we eventually will see a tidal wave of automated enforcement actions. Imagine if everything you posted was scrutinized by an all-knowing copyright computer. That will be no fun!)