Is This The First DMCA Notice Over 3D Printer Plans?
from the begin-the-beginning dept
Just a few months ago, we highlighted how an upcoming battle in the copyright world will be coming from the rise in 3D printing, and the ability to simply print out new physical objects based on plans. And, as a few different folks have sent in, a site that collects and aggregates 3D printer plans called Thingiverse recently said that it’s received its first ever DMCA takedown notice over a plan for a 3D printer object. To avoid liability, of course, the site complied. The specific DMCA takedown involved this 3D printable design of “the impossible triangle.”
Of course many people wondered if the guy claiming copyright on this, Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz, had a valid copyright on this, since the basic design he’s talking about is just the
famed Penrose triangle, and there are plenty of examples of people making it. On top of that, the DMCA takedown he issued was over people creating similar Penrose triangle 3D printer designs
based on a challenge Schwanitz himself put out there, to see if anyone else could figure out how to model a printable Penrose triangle, and the winning results figured it out:
Of course, the very fact that they figured it out themselves, without the specific instructions on how Schwanitz did it, lends even more credence to the claim that the takedown was completely bogus. They created these new versions not by copying his work, which was hidden away, but by understanding the basic physics and optics of how to create something that appears like the classic Penrose triangle. In fact, the creator of the 3D printable version above notes that his version was
“based solely on the 1934 design painted by Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvard,” which makes me wonder what sort of copyright claim Dr. Schwanitz actually has over the design.
In the end, Schwanitz decided to back down, rescinding the takedown notice and promising to release his version into the public domain (where it may have really been all along). Still, this definitely is an early warning sign of things to come. I’m sure it won’t be long before we hear of more copyright issues related to 3D printers, and they’ll be over issues a lot more serious than an optical illusion.
Filed Under: 3d printers, copyright, dmca, penrose triangle
Comments on “Is This The First DMCA Notice Over 3D Printer Plans?”
They call it dirt for a reason
Masnick,
You once again attempt to fully engrace me with your presence, but with a three-week-old story.
Who prioritizes your stories? I ask because I want to give them a reference to work for my competitors.
Keep up the good work (I think)
They call it dirt for a reason
Is your life so devoid of meaning that, when you find no fault with the content of a story on TD, you must instead make a completely irrelevant comment complaining about TD, a site you visit often?
They call it dirt for a reason
Did you even see that kid? I mean, wow. What a stand-out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=oyZxzkd-Jsk
When he becomes 16, he’s going to have many more opportunities than I ever had.
They call it dirt for a reason
Sorry, that kid is awesome because he said he could make something “that annoys your parents”
They call it dirt for a reason
You fool! Mike was obviously caught in a time shift!
Mike was actually posting this BEFORE it happened, but, because of a temporal shift, caused by an unpatched bug in his server’s Linux Kernel, it actually got posted long AFTER it happened.
Or maybe this has been on the story queue for ages, but got pushed back because other, more important stories kept showing up. Nah, occam’s razor: Time shift did it 🙂
They call it dirt for a reason
Anonymous Coward,
You once again attempt to fully engrace me with your presence, but with a weak lametroll attempt.
Who informed you of the best place to get breaking news? Did you figure it out all by yourself? I ask because I want to give them a reference to work for my competitors.
Keep up the good work (I think)
They call it dirt for a reason
I don’t know about the other dude, but I can find plenty of fault in the story.
The most important being that the plans to print something on a 3D printer would be the same as the plans to build a house. Yes, you can copyright building plans (and even trademark the “names” of these places), even if the look of the building is similar to other designs in the past. Architectural plans are both science and art, and merit protection.
It wouldn’t be unreasonable for that to be extended off to 3D printable objects (and maybe even the future Star Trek Replicator Device).
If designers want to put their product in the public domain (or 3D CC license), that is their right and more power to them. But there should not be some sort of assumption of free to start with, as it would not line up with any other legal standing for art or design items.
They call it dirt for a reason
Does 3D printing frighten you?
Spot On
The history of 3D imaging is fascinating, and it seems as though the conversation and legal side of things will be heating up as well.
They call it dirt for a reason
I wish to live in an optical illusion.
They call it dirt for a reason
Let’s think about this:
Cost of materials – Consumer spends $X
Cost of finding blueprints – Consumer spends X amount of time finding their desired schematics or building their own
Cost of a DMCA takedown because people aren’t buying your products but making their own?
Companies are going to hurt themselves.
Finally, the cost of knowing you have a printer to make up new ideas for a cheaper price? Priceless.
Illusion
We already live in an illusion. You have the illusion of freedom. In actuality you are nothing more than a cash-cow for the government.
They call it dirt for a reason
Since the “building plans” weren’t used by any of the other “house designers”, but they came up with their own, based also on the older design, your comment is completely irrelevant.
They call it dirt for a reason
Did you read the article? There is prior art in existence that predates his own claim to copyright. So his claim to copyright is shaky at best. You’re arguing against something that isn’t there.
Doctorow novel
Cory Doctorow’s novel Makers (available for free) deals with this a lot. http://craphound.com/makers/download/
Illusion
Ha! Joke’s on them! I’m broke.
They call it dirt for a reason
It should frighten everyone! Just think, people can print their own CDs! This will destroy the music industry and all artists will go broke! No more culture!
/sarc
They call it dirt for a reason
The most important being that the plans to print something on a 3D printer would be the same as the plans to build a house. Yes, you can copyright building plans (and even trademark the “names” of these places), even if the look of the building is similar to other designs in the past. Architectural plans are both science and art, and merit protection.
It wouldn’t be unreasonable for that to be extended off to 3D printable objects (and maybe even the future Star Trek Replicator Device).
Why don’t we just stop coming up with new technology? It seems like any time someone invents something innovative, most of the effort goes into finding ways to put limits on it. Limits either built into the technology itself or imposed on it by the legal system.
Companies make faster internet services and then place caps on the accounts so that people can’t actually use it like they want to. We invent digital files that can be copied an infinite number of times with no loss in quality and all the corporations spend millions coming up with ways to make them un-copyable. They invent display devices capable of beautiful HD pictures and then they saddle them with restrictions on what can be connected to them. Companies like Netflix come up with the idea of letting people watch streaming movies online and the studios try to kill it with high fees and restrictive licensing.
Why even bother inventing something new when it will just be the source of controversy and a push to have all sorts of limits and restrictions placed on it? Much better to just freeze technology at its current level than to try adapting to a world where things are no longer finite.
They call it dirt for a reason
Yeah, I agree technology sucks ass now. It used to be exciting. Now it’s just another way to scam people.
They call it dirt for a reason
Bitch, fuck you.
Not everyone is a dilettante with nothing better to do than jack off and troll blogs (I think).
They call it dirt for a reason
i see something worse…TSA agents printing up full body scans…
Doctorow novel
His short story “printcrime” more directly deals with it, and only takes about 2 min to read.
http://craphound.com/?p=573
Spot On
The history of spam is fascinating too.
They call it dirt for a reason
> You once again attempt to fully engrace
> me with your presence
“Engrace” is not a word, genius.
They call it dirt for a reason
> It wouldn’t be unreasonable for that to be
> extended off to 3D printable objects (and
> maybe even the future Star Trek Replicator
> Device).
I’m waiting for them to invent the holodeck technology and the furious legal issues involved with celebrities upset that Joe-Six Pack can come home from a rough day at the plant and order up Angelina Jolie for a night of X-rated adventure.
Or the guy who divorces his real wife in favor of an completely realistic hologram which he can turn off whenever he likes.
They call it dirt for a reason
but with a three-week-old story
(1) Story is just a few days old, not three weeks.
(2) We make no claims to breaking news, and quite frequently write about stories that are three weeks old or older.
(3) This story includes much more recent news, including yesterday’s revelation that the guy backed down.
How much has changed
I haven’t read techdirt in a while so I wouldn’t know if my question has been addressed but I was curious, how does this affect your post “The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics On Free”? Do we simply erase merchandise such as CDs, figurines, action figures, and accessories? Or are they still scarce so as long as “official” is attached to the merchandise?
How will this affect the industries that rely on physical scarce goods? Will the embracing of this technology by many industries be futile as home 3D printers become more feasible?