Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?  

And there you have it ...

Just goes to show that you get what you pay for.

@sean-roach

Sure, you're right.  The remix should respect the license terms of the original.

But as @dan-rogers said, c'est la vie. The moment you out something out on the interwebs, you give up control. Attaching a Creative Commons license to a model is IMHO mostly a feel-good thing. CC offers no form of protection to the creator beyond what common law (copyright mostly) provides. CC licenses have no legal significance beyond the license itself.

What are you going to do about violations of the license? Sue them? Certainly not unless there's NC involved, and even then, the margins in this "business" are so razor thin that I don't see how anyone can afford legal action. You may have a friendly host who will take stuff in violation of licensing terms down, even then, the effort to get it done may not be worth it. Sure, you could also try to shame someone who violates your license terms in the court of public opinion. But again, I for one would have better things to do with my time.

I've had a few cases myself where I was contacted for permission to sell NC models I had published in Asian countries, and I was happy to give them a non-exclusive license in return for attribution. But if they hadn't taken the high road, I probably would have never noticed (I don't check websites in Thai or Lao that frequently...), and even if, I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.

I sell some stuff, but really as a service to those who don't have a printer, and all but two of the models I sell I have also published here. And even those, if someone reengineered them, life would be too short for me to go after them.

Intellectual Property Protection

I used to make and sell virtual items in Second Life, which is how I got into computer modeling in the first place and why I originally purchased Zbrush. This came up all the time. There were permissions for items released into Second Life and if anyone tried to sell something I made that they didn't have permission to sell, I could file a DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act) claim with Second Life and Second Life staff would remove that item put up for sale by the other party. Second Life had a legal obligation to enforce their permission system under the intellectual properties laws. AFAIK, this website has an obligation to enforce copyrights. Copyrights are automatically owned by the creator of the work, it is not necessary to file for a copyright. You could let the original creator know and they could file a claim if they wanted to. 

I doubt the "this web site" part - this is a user forum package, not a business.

A door lock works because some people are willing to abide by the contract the door lock represents.    Door locks do not protect against break in, and the makers of door locks are NOT accountable if someone breaks the door or the lock.  So ... no, web sites are NOT required to enforce copyrights.  In fact, if you publish your thing, you just GAVE UP rights to it to the web site that is hosting it.  So it's not yours to protect any more.

Not a lock but a note.

This isn't a lock on the door, but rather a note stuck to the door saying please stay out.

A lock, even if a very cheap lock, on par with a thief knot, would be to change the default license on a derivative design to match that of the original, after confirming that either the remix option was checked on the original, or the creator of the two designs was the same, and then throw up a pop-up, reminding the person of the license, if they went to change their own settings to ones that weren't compatible with the original. This WOULDN'T prevent them from simply un-checking the remix box, or re-uploading it without the remix box checked, but would stand as a reminder of the expectation of fair play.

A more expensive lock would be something like what Google has trolling Youtube for copyright violations. Something as simple as a plagairism checker, looking at the .STL's, or the .GCODE toolpaths, for IDENTICAL sections, might be technically feasible, although it'd probably require a fairly robust datacenter to do all the comparisons.

Oh, and unless the license to use the website or other venue says otherwise, if you publish ANYthing, including a digital design, song, picture, or story, you retain copyright on it and can go after anyone who misuses it, including through the site you willingly posted it to.

At least in the US, yes, you automatically have the copyright for the work you created but it has to be registered (which costs money) before you can file a claim in Federal Court of infringement to the work. 

re

Yes but it doesn't have to be registered to file a DMCA with a website. It doesn't cost any money to do this. It is just a letter with specific information that is sent to the entity that creates the website. It would be up to Prusa if they would be willing to take things down, but as they are trying to position themselves as an alternative to Thingiverse,  it might be in their interest. 

Posted by: @fuchsr

At least in the US, yes, you automatically have the copyright for the work you created but it has to be registered (which costs money) before you can file a claim in Federal Court of infringement to the work. 

It's dead Jim

I'm hoping this particular horse has been given a burial.

It is at least theoretically possible that the originator has agreed the new conditions with the remixer.  @sylviatrilling is right, the honourable thing to do now would be to notify the originator so that, if necessary, action may be taken.

Cheerio,

Prusaprinter could make this easier

I know a lot of the prusaprinter site was put together quickly, but it would be nice if they revisited the licensing and remixing functions. I suspect a lot of posters pick a license more-or-less at random based on a quick read. If something is flagged as a remix, the original license could be suggested as the default (or enforced).

I do agree that licensing is worthwhile if only to allow takedown requests.

RE: Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?

I sent Clive a message and included a link to this thread. 

RE: Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?

So did I, and his version is down now.

RE: Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?

Which is unfortunate, as his version was in keeping with the license of the original. CC BY-NC-SA. He gave credit to the original, didn't open his version up to commercial exploitation, and shared his modifications to the wider community.

Pollyannas are ruining the world

So now the guy thinks he did wrong, got chastised for it and he never did violate the original terms.  Pollyannas are a curse.

RE: Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?

Hello, I would like to show one project as a remix here from Thingiverse. However, I could not find the project from the easy searching space. I tried to write the name of the owner, or project, or paste the link, unfortunately, it did not appear. Do you know any easy way to find the project? And if I can not find it, is it okay to paste the link of the project into the description section?

RE: Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?

Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?

Happened to me twice now in the short time I've been with Printables, last time here:

https://www.printables.com/model/418648-loud-and-compact-whistle-for-your-keychain

Since this entry is still online despite yesterday's report - does anyone know how long it usually takes to see an action bei Prusa?

It's gone now.  24-48 hours seems reasonable.

Cheerio,

RE: Remix with more permissive permissions than the original?

Yes, indeed.