new thingiverse update from attorney

[blog.thingiverse.com]

Views? :-D

It only took a week.

I'd like a second opinion though.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Moral rights?

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

I've never heard of moral rights before, and I haven't read the ToS myself, but most of the points he makes make sense to me.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moral rights?

According to the attorney they are rights assigned in some countries outside the US, and they can be contradictory to US copyright law, and hence people are asked to wave them.
There are several examples in the text of problems they could cause, for example they give the original author the right to clame that a particular derivative "mutilates" the original work, likely opening thingiverse and the derivatives author to a law suit.

The response is more or less what I would expect the changes were IMO legal CYA, not some attempt to own everything on thingiverse, but I'm not a lawyer and if I really cared I'd consult one. I've seen way too many harmless seeming clauses in legal contracts mean something very different than an english reading would imply.

... in some other forums I'm member of, the TOS sounds in a similar way 'possessive' to user content, but I've learned, that this was born out from experience with users, first contributing to the community and posting images and other valuable content, then went angry about something and - while leaving the forum - deleted all their contents, so most of the threads, they vere involved, were rendered mostly useless.

Even in the RepRap-forum we had to activate some backup-options and time-limited editing of posts because of such occasions.

So I'm seeing this discussion with interest, as it will cover some aspects of content-handling, that may influence other communities too ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

I like the aspect of a moral right but two things I see for my country #1 boy, that open up a can of worms as the USA is already a very litigious society and that would only compound that even more (lawyers would love it as more work for them) and #2 who determines malice in mutilating your work? Maybe the person had autism and they like it but strong arm originator doesn't like what you did to their work with your derivative and sues you then the court rules against them and the appellant courts lights up like a basket of bottle rockets.

I guess I only see that Moral rights as another way to keep the lawyers working and at least in the USA people know the Attorneys take half in some cases and 1/3rd in the others.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

I see part of the problem as they may not intend to use it to claim ownership but then again they intended to be an opensource hardware company and that has changed too. What happens in 5 years when their intentions change and they decide they do own the objects. Then you try and take them to court only to find out that the TOS does actually give them the right to do whatever they want with the content. It needs to state clearly their role, not our waivers. Like: Thinigiverse and MBI waive all rights and responsibilities to content uploaded to Thinigverse by its users, all content is the responsibility of the registered user and not Thingiverse or MBI.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Sublime Wrote:
>Like: Thinigiverse and MBI waive
> all rights and responsibilities to content
> uploaded to Thinigverse by its users, all content
> is the responsibility of the registered user and
> not Thingiverse or MBI.
Exactly. Short, sweet and to the point but I really am a bit dubious of their future intentions and it seems to me they are just leaving the doors open for it.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Well honestly at this point they'd have a hard time in court claiming that the current TOS gave them ownership.
Not least of which because the guy who wrote the TOS has just stated that the TOS limits the transfer of rights to those needed by thingiverse only.
Contract law is a minefield, one I'd rather stay away from, but as I've had it explained to me intention of the parties entering into the agreement is incredibly important if the language is at all ambiguous.

What I'm having trouble understanding with regard to the Moral Rights clause is that it seems to be moot for the majority of the targeted userbase.

According to the MBI post Moral Rights are not applicable in the US, and according to Wikipedia they are only valid in the US for a narrow subset of visual arts. Also, in at least Europe : "...it is not possible for authors to assign or even waive their moral rights.". So surely if the T&C had stated something like "You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content, if that is allowed in your juristiction" then this clause perhaps would not have caused so much anxiety. (Of course I realise that referencing a Wikipedia article is dubious - but this site also states "The EU rights are inalienable, that is cannot be sold or waived." so I lean towards believing it).

Regardless, I hope that this issue dies down because I can't imagine there is a truly satisfactory outcome for all. I don't believe MBI are being malicious, simply that they haven't been very good at interacting with the community on this issue.

---

------------------------------------------
garyhodgson.com/reprap | reprap.development-tracker.info | thingtracker.net

Quote

Regardless, I hope that this issue dies down because I can't imagine there is a truly satisfactory outcome for all. I don't believe MBI are being malicious, simply that they haven't been very good at interacting with the community on this issue.

I agree with you - imo, the clause in question probably was written by the most junior of partners at MakerBot's law firm, and should never have passed review.

"Never attribute to malice, something that can easily be explained by stupidity".

OK. Forget moral rights for just a sec.

Does this sound any better to anyone?

"You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of attribution with respect to your User Content."

It sounds EVEN WORSE.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

I think that's probably just there to stop people demanding that derived things are attributed to them.

I've given up trying to understand legal documents, I've read what I thought were simple contracts and had lawyers tell me under no circumstances should I sign, it, read what I thought were heinous contracts and had lawyers tell me they were in my favor.

IMO and I'm not a lawyer, the TOS looks pretty boiler plate to me, hosting other peoples content has the potential to be a legal nightmare if there is a dispute over ownership or attribution or a patent claim or whatever, I'd start worrying about the point they actually start abusing the TOS. Or just start your own competing service.

From the comments section of the makerbot blog post covering the lawyers explanation:

MichaelAtOz September 26, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Ryan, ‘Services’ first paragraph;
“Company provides a service for users to share digital designs that can be printed on 3D printers to create physical objects”
So service is sharing, full stop. Then the secondary licence kicks in.
Btw, unless you selected a non-commercial licence, anyone can print & sell for profit. Just like zheng3 selling Prusa’s occupy cube on etsy.


Matt September 26, 2012 at 6:40 pm

So you’ve talked about the ‘moral rights’, so now how about you explain the ‘or attribution’ part? I’m pretty sure that ‘or’ between ‘moral rights’ and ‘attribution’ is a conjuction that joins two separate ideas together.
And isn’t the right of attribution a moral right? Why mention it at all if it’s already spelled out as a moral right in the law?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


AKron September 26, 2012 at 6:52 pm

Thanks you Rich, and Thank you Makerbot!


Lasivian September 26, 2012 at 8:49 pm

I have said before, I have no issues with the Thingiverse TOS.
I suggest rather than less “legalese” terms of service that mouseover “human explanations” be added to each section. That’s really all people want to know.
What I take issue with (And is something that the marketing department should address rather than legal) on Thingiverse is the arbitrary manner that things on the site are selected as “Featured”.
It obviously favors Makerbot, and should be more based on member likes if Makerbot wants to maintain the sites position as the center of the “thing” universe.


I wonder why my comment is "awaiting moderation"...guess we'll have to wait and see.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Yeah, I never could figure out what got something into Featured and sometimes it was Featured, literally, moments after it was uploaded too.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Claiming ownership of the designs posted under tos is one thing, but it can be argued. I'm sure makerbot's lawyers are saying the opposite because they don't have to go to court and enforce it......it's just another # to add to MBI's bill....lol....every lawyer is confident with their work when they take your money.

The way I see it is taking ownership of a design and distributing it when they are unaware the legal status is risky. It's possible for them to get called to court anywhere in the world at any time for patent infrigment. From a legal exposure point, I'm surprised they didn't do the opposite to limit their exposure because even distributing the file posted has some risk involved.

The only way you can protect your designs is by doing a proper patent search for for the countries you seek protection, then getting a design patent in the counties you seek protection and finally enforcing them.

Well, thingiverse finally decided to publish my comment, and better yet I got a response!

Ryan September 27, 2012 at 11:16 am

@MichaelAtOz: please have your quote continue to the end of the sentence/idea “Company provides a service for users to share digital designs that can be printed on 3D printers to create physical objects (collectively, with all other services provided through the Site, the “Services”).” The ‘with all other services’ is what I’d like defined or limited.
@Matt: I think its a typo and should be “Moral Right of Attribution”
@Lasivian: Since MakerBot has become such a big player in 3D printing, it might be wise to separate Thingiverse administration from MakerBot administration to avoid favoritism. (Just a Thought)

Matt September 27, 2012 at 11:56 am

@ Ryan: Then it should be easy to fix!


So this whole thing comes down to a single letter...

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

A lot of the contracts I have signed had to go back to their attorney which then sent it to mine and back it went over a single letter. Law is a scam and the reason everything is so overly complicated is so attorneys can make a lot of money. What was it that Shakespeare said about them? ><

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Sublime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see part of the problem as they may not intend
> to use it to claim ownership but then again they
> intended to be an opensource hardware company and
> that has changed too. What happens in 5 years when
> their intentions change and they decide they do
> own the objects.

AFAIK, you can't do that.
At least not here. Not sure about the legal system in US, but legal agreements CANNOT be applied retroactively!

If they change it, it applies to every object uploaded from that point onwards, not to objects that are already uploaded.
The previous terms apply to those.

No, when something changes in the USA a new contract must be drawn up and in that contract it may have a retroactive clause in it and the reason you have to have an attorney, most times, decipher everything in it.

An example is your landlord makes a change to some pre existing rule, or makes up a new rule, a new contract must be signed by you (most times they wait until your yearly lease is up to throw it on you) or you may leave the premises (move out) BUT it may have a retroactive clause that says all vehicles that were 10 dollar parking fee is now 20 back dated from when you first moved in or (in most cases) 1 year. Now if there is no retroactive clause in the new contract then you are grandfathered in until possibly the next time (they will see it as an oversight).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2012 12:43PM by Dark Alchemist.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.