Source please. As far as I am aware, no such exception exists that permits you to take someone else’s IP, IP that you have no other rights to, and use it for yourself.
But, wait… Didn’t you just say copyright has a fair use exception that allows you to make your own personal copies?
Your own earlier argument contradicts this argument. Under your own claim, the user has a right to make a personal use copy of whatever they want, so any personal use would be “non-infringing”. No?
Yes, I have trouble understanding some people’s views on this as they can be completely self-contradicting and self-suiting.
I initially read this with some amount of incredulity but then I realized that the seminal case in this space may have preceded your birth as you might not be old enough to remember it like some of us graybeards.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
Of course there have been thousands of cases and articles since then (& before as well) but a quick Google will reveal a wonder of personal riggts that alter what most people believe about copyright as the law tries to balance creator & societal interests.
“making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting” is not the same as making a coaster with a Harley Davidson logo to stick your coffee table.
Harley Davidson licenses others to put their logo on products, including coasters. Engraving their logo on your own coaster for your own use is depriving HD of the proceeds from the use of their logo. It is theft, and it is illegal.
SPECIFICALLY: Find me a source that says this is legal. (HINT: You won’t.)
And again, your positions contradict themselves:
You are saying people can use whatever copyrighted stuff they want as long as it is for personal use.
But you are also saying that Palmer was encouraging violation of GF’s IP because he suggested someone could modify the design for their own personal use, but outside of the GFUI.
By your own statements, Palmer should be completely vindicated because he was only telling someone how to do something that you believe they already have a right to do.
On that point, if you can see it, we agree.
The difference between us here is WHY we believe the person already had the right to do what they wanted to do.
My view is that the user already had a right to use the design because that right was granted to them by GF themselves.
The fact they want to modify the design outside of the GFUI, but still use it on the Glowforge, is perfectly OK. There are no licensing or contractual restrictions in the GF TOS that prohibits it (at least, that I can find).
Something that might help to settle everyone (because I really do hate to see all this angst) is to go and read the TOS if you haven’t.
Glowforge isn’t planning to police IP for infractions of all intellectual property, they have neither the right nor the responsibility to do that. So people who have made “a mouse” for the Christmas tree aren’t going to have the fires of hell rain down on their heads. But they will protect the Catalog and contents that they are responsible for. It’s written that way in the TOS that we agree to.
And they’re denying Forum posting access, not suing anybody. Fairly mild sort of control really. Even the individual affected is amused by it and not upset, according to your earlier words @scott.wiederhold …why get upset if he doesn’t care?
I hate getting into IP issues, it always leaves everyone angry. Everybody has got an opinion about what “should” be and all we can do is interpret them the best we can, but it’s still under development world-wide, so no one is right, and no one knows what to do.
In the absence of a fixed set of guidelines, each individual company has to set the rules for themselves, and that is what Glowforge has done. It’s their interpretation of what they want to see happen on the forum that they pay for, so they get to set the rules here.
We’re not going to live to see a final set of rules for dealing with IP, it’s going to change as media access changes, for all of our lives, and our children’s lives and their children’s lives. So getting too out of whack about it is a real waste of energy that could be used to create content of our own.
I don’t necessarily want to be the one to test it in court, but I think a case could be made that transforming an image into a lasered piece for one’s own use and enjoyment falls under the definition and intent of “fair use.” It’s transformative, and it’s a limited use of the IP.
A hospital I used to work for once created an in-house educational PowerPoint on integrity in the workplace, and made it mandatory that all employees view it and complete a post-test. The PowerPoint was illustrated using Disney cartoons.
He isn’t mad at all. In fact, he’s quite amused by the whole thing.
The only real concern is that under the TOS, GF can not only deny you access to the forum, but also access to the service.
So, you could lose the ability to use your GF if you don’t play along.
For me, its more about the ethics of this company. Specifically, their loose ways with other’s IP (i.e. Open Source, which they still are not fully complying with), and their quick and draconian responses to anything that even whiffs of infringing on their’s (even when, as in this case, it doesn’t).
Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
Yeah, my first etched tile was simply amazing, and my personal opinion is that lasering it into ceramic and coloring it with Sharpies is totally transformative and gives it a very different character than printing it on paper, but I’m a wuss and not ready to challenge US copyright law, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.
Fair use is murky, and IANA$500/HL, but in the United States there is no generalized principle of fair use for personal use. If you make a TARDIS bookmark with your Glowforge, that is an infringement; the copyright holder could have sold you a bookmark and so you have undermined a potential market for the holder.
What is less clear is the presumed original case: someone has paid for the right to use a design, and they want to flip or otherwise make a small change to it. An authorized agent for the copyright holder has placed the file in question on the licensee’s hard drive, and someone points out that this might be a way for the licensee to make changes that at least arguably fall under fair use.
Good, I’m glad to hear he doesn’t mind. And yes, Glowforge does have the right to refuse the service to anyone for any reason without providing any explanation at all under their Terms of Service. Many contracts are like that these days, but few people bother to read the terms.
They haven’t imposed that restriction though in this case. I don’t see any reason to worry about them doing so.
As far as I can tell, they haven’t used that aside from running into un-resolvable delivery obstacles. I really don’t think you need to worry about it, but I also realize that it’s impossible to tell folks not to worry, so I’ll go take care of some other financial stuff this morning and let you guys get to it.
The overall tenor from some seems to be that he committed some war crime level atrocity, when in reality, it is very arguably not an infringement at all - whether one believes it was under the license already granted or Fair Use.
You’re right that Glowforge probably is not planning to police IP for infractions of all intellectual property. (Though I do wonder what those $500/hour lawyers would say about actively policing the IP of people who are putting stuff in Glowforge’s catalog while openly permitting equivalent infringements of copyrights whose holders have no relationship to Glowforge.)
But that is not what is written in the TOS. The TOS does not make a distinction between some intellectual property and others. If you print a Mickey Mouse ornament for your Christmas tree, that is a clear violation of the TOS. How likely is Glowforge to then brick your device? Probably not very; that wouldn’t be much of a business plan. But they could. You’ve agreed to that. So their approach to these kinds of cases should get some scrutiny from users.
No, he was banned (presumably) for violating the TOC.
But I can see we’re at opposite sides of this discussion and not going to change the other’s mind so I’ll just take my own advice and discontinue involvement.
No, he didn’t violate the TOC as he didn’t encourage anybody to do anything except exercise a right we both believe (for differing reasons) that person has*.
*Though, according to you, at the spry age of 46, I’m probably too young to understand any of this.
Just wanted to share that I appreciate everyone in the thoughtful conversation here - it’s hard not to jump in with my own thoughts but I’m going to stick to eavesdropping unless anyone has questions for me.
