Purchasing a set of files that are for laser but I want to mill

Random or Off Topic
1

It seems like all the files I want to buy and mill are setup for the laser dudes.
I am trying my utmost best not to get side tracked with the lasers.
I could see how maybe if it’s like a bunch of parts that are setup on a sheet and the tool diameter being different or wider. But I thought I would ask before I buy or start looking.

I also had a question about these copywriter clauses on thingaverse etc.
I am trying my best not to upset or do anything illegal, I don’t want to be a thief of ppls hard work.
Many times ppl ask “ohh that’s cool can I buy one or hey my friend saw that thing you gave me and wants to buy one “ I have just been gifting them bc I don’t understand the rules.
It seems like this attribution license would require me to put the creators name on the part or say that so and so created it I just printed it ?
Or is that basically just a open source license that lets ppl build off it and make one for themselves.
Or do you contact the maker and pay them each one you sell etc ?
And if you remix something how the heck does that work.
I saw a you tube video of a guy that was complaining about the mpcnc design I was pretty dumbfounded by that.

2 Likes
2

I don’t have complete answers for you. I too am confused. I was an avid photographer for a period of time, and sold a small amount of my work. This has sensitized me to copyright issues. My general approach is that, if I have any doubt about whether the files can be used the way I want, I just use them for inspiration. I will take the concept and make my own version. I cannot draw organic/natural elements, so, if I need something organic for my inspired project, I will either find or buy those graphics. There are a lot of public domain graphics available.

As for laser vs. CNC, I’ve never seen rights that tie a project or graphic specifically to the laser. If you have the right to laser cut it, then you can use it for a CNC project. There are some issues with using laser files for CNC work. A lot of laser projects fit together, so they have slots, and tabs. Those slots and tabs will be 1) authored for a specific wood thickness, 2) will assume a specific laser kerf for the fit, and 3) lack the dog-bone corners necessary to get routed parts to fit together. Even if I’m going to CNC an “exact” copy of a laser project, I often find it easier to put the laser graphic in the background and reauthor the vector graphics specifically for the CNC and my selected material.

There are troves of CNC projects. There have been a couple of topics on this forum that have built lists where to find CNC-specific projects, so you might want to search them out. With that said, there are many more free laser projects available, and still more sites that have free graphics that can be used in either laser or CNC work.

I’ve done a fair bit of searching and collecting projects and vector images. It is not uncommon for me to find graphics for sale on a site like Etsy that are also available on public domain or other free websites. In some cases, it is pretty clear that the Etsy seller repackaged public domain graphics for sale. This is not illegal for true public domain content. For example, there are websites that make a good profit stream by repackaging NASA content.

In other cases, things are not so clear. It is possible someone created the project/graphics, posted it for free use, and the Etsy seller stole it for resale. It is also possible that someone purchased an Etsy project or graphics and then posted the files to a site that allows downloading for free.

As for copyright, you have to pay attention to any licensing statements at the sites where you download. There is a wide variety of what is allowed. Thingiverse has a license statement associated with each project, and they vary a lot. Personally, I find it is rare for anyone to allow their work to be used for commercial sales. Typically, this is in the licensing statement:
image

2 Likes
3

Robert
Thanks so much for the response, totally makes sense about the dog bone thing I would have definitely not considered that.
And also using the files as a idea is a good thing I have kind of started that with this vase thing a friend wanted. In reality it’s probably best to just force my hand at learning better cad and drawing.
I went to find a hot wheels car holder semi wall mount storage deal. And the first comment was exactly what you said. The seller had stolen the files from the original author. Just trying my best to stay in line and respect things.
As usual your info is greatly appreciated:)

4

Your Hot Wheels Semi is a good “case study” for several of my points. For example, take a look at the results for “Hot Wheels” on this free vector site. There are a variety of designs. Which ones are original “art” and which ones are stolen? For that matter the comment you found claiming that his design was stolen may just be sour grapes due to fair use. It is a morass.

But beyond that, the approach most of these files in my link take would not be my first choice for a router. I wouldn’t follow any design that included tabs in the frame. If you don’t mind seeing the plywood edge in the openings, simply routing each opening in two layers of 5/8" or 3/4" plywood would be simple to model and assemble…and it would give you a lot more creative freedom if you elected to take it. That is the openings don’t have to be a grid. You could create any kind of opening design you wanted. You could put a hardboard or plywood backer board stained or painted a contrasting color if you wanted to dress it up a bit.

As a side note, most of the files I link above are in CDR format. There are several online converters that can convert CDR into DXF or SVG format.

2 Likes
5

Very interesting
Thanks again I will have a peek in a bit it’s daughters Xmas concert rn. Can’t sneek in the reading haha.
Cheers man.

1 Like
6

If you want motivation for releasing files with a license that can be used for commercial sales, here it is: Why are you sharing your files in the first place? To get the most people reusing it. If you don’t allow commercial, then you are shutting out any business from reusing it.

Projects like sandify, or v1pi are licensed with business friendly licenses because I want V1 to be able to use them. Or sisyphus. Or anyone I don’t know, but is trying to benefit from this free information.

I use a lot of open source software at work. If that code was not usable for commercial purposes, I would not be able to use it.

When you make “art”, you copyright it. That means you own that art. If you want to give someone else permission to use it, you give them a license. By downloading a part from thingiverse, you are agreeing to that license, so you can use the copyrighted material. The license says what you can and can’t do with the part.

The best rule of thumb is to just follow the intention of the license. If it says, “non commercial”, give the parts away, don’t sell them. If you don’t want to make them without being paid, then you have to turn down the work. If you remix something, make the license on your work the same license. If you republish the work (somewhere else, especially), credit the original creator.

But, there is an ugly trick to it. If I publish a story and a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, I can copyright it. But the actual amount of each ingredient, and the actual process for making the colors isn’t “art”. You can make your own recipe, with your own words, and the same ingredients and procedures. This gets really confusing because it tries to separate the “art” from the functional. Some people think a screw driver is only function, where others see form. In an STL, it gets very muddy. Almost all software is copyrightable because it is considered “art”. So it isn’t purely about form vs function. It has more to do with how unique something is, vs. physical properties of the universe.

So just don’t be a jerk. If someone posts a file for free on a sharing site, they probably want people to use it and remix it. But they probably don’t want you to take the stl and sell it on etsy (even with small changes). But they also don’t own the concept of a “box for hot wheels” and you can make your own box for hotwheels and sell those plans on etsy, as long as you aren’t copying the “art” from the original.

2 Likes
7

Well said. A couple of points:

If you don’t allow commercial, then you are shutting out any business from reusing it.

The problem I see with using vector files given away for free is that I suspect a significant portion of them are pirated. The person publishing them is not the copyright holder trying to get their work out. And a person downloading the file cannot tell if the item is truly being placed in the public domain (or creative commons, or MIT…) or not.

But the actual amount of each ingredient, and the actual process for making the colors isn’t “art”.

The hard question is how different something has to be to not impinge on an existing copyright or to be considered copyrighted by the new “artist.” I only read popular press accounts, but it seems to me that the law is mixed about the degree and kind of differences necessary to establish a new copyright. It is relatively easy for me to pull an image from some existing (copyrighted) work on Etsy and remodel something very similar from scratch, but that does not mean I have created my own copyrighted work and not impinged on the original copyright.

2 Likes
8

I may be wrong here, and someone who is smarter about this, please let me know. But I believe also the “license” aspect of not for “commercial use” is with the file itself. If you download a file for free from Thangs/Thingiverse, etc., or pay for someone’s files on the other sites, then that license applies to just the file, and therefore, you cannot turn around and sell that file for commercial purposes (stolen work). If you make something with/based on that file, then you should be able to sell what you have made as @jeffeb3 has stated, the process of making it is not owned.

I remember seeing a YT channel that sort of talked about this, and another way to look at it is your are not selling the product itself, rather you are selling your “services” for creating the end product. Where you can get into real trouble is in the trade marked stuff (sports logos, Harley-Davidson, Disney, etc) where you may have to purchase a license to sell anything you create using their exact stuff. I am by no means an expert, and I really hope I have not conveyed any wrong or bad information. If you really want to know, you’d have to talk to a “trade-law” attorney that can get onto the ins/outs of licensing and all of that.

1 Like
9

If you make something with/based on that file, then you should be able to sell what you have made

Unfortunately, no. If the license prohibits commercial use, then it usually means not selling items produced as well as not selling the files. Ultimately it is up to the license. Most, if not all, of the files on Thingiverse are protected under some form of Creative Commons license, and you can find both simple, high-level, and well as deeper explanations of their licenses [on their site.] (Licenses List | Creative Commons) And, the way it is worded and explained, both on their site and other sites, non-commercial means any use including producing objects based on the file.

Though it does not spell out clearly the distinction you are trying to make, here is a Creative Commons info page on non-commercial.

2 Likes
10

Thanks for the input everyone !!
I understand it a lot better I tried searching and reading and the function and art thing was odd to me.
The wife and I own a salon and just wanted to make a couple things to sell/decorate. And just gathering info on the process it’s probably best not to show case things I can’t sell.
I assume the same applies for making replacement parts for things that are not available anymore.
Like the other day a friends snow blower broke and it’s older and obsolete but works great minus the chute that snapped. So I made one for them and traded the service and design for jalapeño poppers.
Is that something I could put on thingaverse to help someone else that maybe has the same problem. I bet its tied to some trademark tho, and don’t want to get in trouble.

image
image1920×1440 610 KB

image
image1920×2560 299 KB

image
image1920×1440 195 KB

11

I am interested to hear what everyone thinks about this.

1 Like
12

I did design this part my self but measured off the original as best I could.
Made is thicker and the material was ABS I believe and now it’s pla +.
Don’t want to post it on there and have craftsman come after me or something. But also don’t like all this stuff nowadays that just gets land filled.
So many things are built to just throwaway and/or are not supported for very long.
It’s a shame really IMO

1 Like
13

Don’t jump the gun on this. Licensing is a real thing and there are positive and negative aspects. Not doing something because you are unsure is a bummer, you are doing the right thing by asking.

If it is different and solves a problem, it could be okay. The part I think is the hang up on this particular issue is how you should license it when/if you release it. I do not feel you should not do it at all.

I have to be very careful with my words or people will harass me for years.

2 Likes
14

Yeah i can imagine, that’s one bad thing about the internet “ you said in 2017 that………”
I don’t want to start a whole whirlwind of a thing
I wouldn’t ask if this place wasn’t so open minded and civilized

15

You can use all my files and sell them! Sell some pencil cases! :smiley: Make a French Cleat wall for your blowdriers and scissors! :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes
16

Constantly loosing pencils lol would be a cool hat idea wil a pencil holder in the brim.

1 Like
17

I’m not a lawyer, so don’t take this as advice.

If your version doesn’t have a logo (doesn’t say craftsman, or Kleenex, or whatever), and it is obvious it is not coming from craftsman, then I think you are in the clear on trademarks. You can’t sell lemonde and say it is minutemaid. That infringes on trademarks.

There may be a patent on that technology, but they are not enforced unless someone is going to get a big pay day (like samsung suing google or something). Besides, the patent would probably be on how they made the part, or how several pieces interact.

They almost certainly have a copyright on the original design. There is an original CAD or paper copy somewhere that they used to create it. They could argue about how the part looks like the same art, and there were a lot of other ways to make that part without their art. At best, it is a gray area w.r.t. copyright.

But there is also a practical argument here. For one thing, you can’t use this part unless you’ve already paid craftsman. Most brands leave you alone if you are building a community around their products. They will see this as a craftsman fan doing free advertising and giving free support to their existing customers. This is the same reason you can post a gif of a popular tv show and the networks don’t come after you. It is very rare to see that kind of aggression towards 3D printers. Additionally, they will probably just send a letter to thingiverse and they will take it down. It probably won’t put you at any risk.

There was a case recently where honda (well, one part) told printables to take down every model related to Honda. Most people in the community were a bit shocked, and thought it was a dumb move by honda:

But Honda didn’t go after people in court. But they made it clear they didn’t want parts on printables. Morally, I think you can shake your head, but you have to respect it.

So your possible good outcomes are:

  • You only copied function, not art. You probably won’t be able to even argue this point though. It would cost too much to get in front of a judge.
  • Craftsman won’t care, or after they have a think, they will appreciate what you’re doing. If you search craftsman on thingiverse or printables, look at how many things are out there.
  • If craftsman ever cares, they will just ask TV or printables to take it down.

As for what license to use on your part, if it is truely not infringing on their copyright, then you can do what you want. If it is, then making it non commercial might help you avoid them caring. If a popular repair part started showing us as prints on ebay, they may be more likely to go back to the source and ask you to take it down. Posting it with non commercial, those ebay printers would be getting themselves in trouble. I think it is a long shot though.

This is all interesting to talk about. But again, I am not a lawyer. I have made a lot of similar parts and posted them. I feel confident doing this. But you have to decide your own level of risk.

2 Likes
18

That’s an interesting take. Hadn’t heard of that before, but just before I got to your post, I thought about all the aftermarket car parts NOT made by a car manufacturer. Brake pads, oil filters, windshield wipers… Sure, that stuff wears out, and i used to put ford 5.0 oil filters on my 4cyl dodge, so maybe they aren’t manufacturer specific. But i can also get urethane suspension bushings, motor mounts, exhausts…those are unique to the make, often even to the model.

I think the rationale they gave in the article, but it is a bit disappointing for them to not clarify. I’d personally like it better if they embraced it. How long before we have a car with factory supported stls or stps? “i want to buy this car WITHOUT any cupholders, because I’m just going to print my favorite one when I get home” or design one and print it using official files as a start (not unlike Ryan offering the tool mount blank). Probably not a huge market for that right now, but it would be a great way to breathe life into discontinued models.

1 Like
19

Most brands leave you alone if you are building a community around their products.

Because my daughter enjoyed cosplay and is an avid gamer, I’ve searched Thingiverse for models to help make things for her. I find there is a huge amount of content on Thingiverse built on various fandoms that, to me, clearly violate copyrights. The companies have to know this content exists, but, as you say, the benefit of building the community around the fandom outweighs the copyright infringement. If companies elected to enforce their copyrights, it would have a big impact in a lot of areas including Etsy stores, Ebay, cosplay conventions, etc.

There was a case recently where honda…

The same thing happened with Legos on Thingiverse. The strange thing is that many of the people who had their models pulled from Thingiverse, turned around and reposted them without referencing “Legos,” and as far as I know, had no issues. They just used something like “moduler, clip-together blocks” as a description instead, and their content was ignored. It made me wonder if a significant part of the issue was the “Legos” trademark and not the copyright infringement.

3 Likes
20

It’s my (very layman’s) understanding that if you can’t demonstrate that you actively protect your trademark you can lose the opportunity to do so in the future. The same is not true of copyright - it’s yours for the granted period whether you choose to try to enforce it or not.

2 Likes