Is there any practical thing that can be done about intellectual property theft of open source designs? I ask this because I have found that a design that I put on Thingiverse is being sold without attribution despite it being released under the Creative Commons - Attribution Share Alike License.
My design is for a Church Bell with Frame and is on thingiverse at [www.thingiverse.com]
The infringing product is at [www.sterling-applications.com] and has also been sold through Gumtree, ebay and others places. The home page of Sterling Applications gives the impression the all of their designs are their own and nowhere is my design credited.
In putting the design on Thingiverse I never expected any return except the pleasure of giving away something I am proud of and perhaps a little reputation. Having my design sold without attribution may lead to people thinking that I had copied my design from Sterling Applications.
Any suggestions of what can be done beyond sending letters (never replied to) of having hissy fits?
Mike

The Crazy thing is they seem to have done a good job of it, but cant tell from the picture, you would think they had the skills to do their own design work, wonder if they just picked up a bell from second handshop or had it made? Wonder if people order do they get the product?

As for what can be done about this, seems the only way to get any traction is shaming them through social media, maybe they can then credit sources, was this from an old design you copied? did you add any red herrings?

Not sure what kind of person would buy from that lack lustre site!

Other than consulting with an lawyer that specializes in IP, not really much you can do. I have dealt with issues similar to this in the past and unless you have a lot of money to take it to court, you're out of luck. And places like this count on you not being able to afford fighting it.

And talking of theft/ coincidence?
I just found this http://secure.twitch.tv/mechabits
No info just name holding, this has happened before to me,
this looks like a new registration, now there is also a game company in Liverpool
created a game called mechabit... but I think maybe they have branched out into bits
or its some other fan, or some canny domain squatter.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2015 09:43AM by MechaBits.

Quote
MechaBits
The Crazy thing is they seem to have done a good job of it.......

I have no problem with it being a good job which it is: [www.gumtree.com]
But simply that they haven't credited me with the design.

Quote

wonder if they just picked up a bell from second handshop or had it made?....

The bell itself is exactly to my design so is probably 3D printed in PLA and either metallic painted or plated.
Mike

I wouldn't pay £100 for a bell with no ding!
For that money I would want real wood & metal.
Write to gumtree, take down notice.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2015 10:10AM by MechaBits.

Somebody should really come up with something, preferably legal, that can be done to force compliance with open source licenses. If Sterling Applications had credited me, or even put up a "I made one" in Thingiverse I wouldn't have minded too much.

It seems though that ElmoC is right and nothing much can be done about it. This has also happened to me several times before in the supposedly copyrighted field (e.g. [circuit-labs.blogspot.co.uk] ) without attribution and I understand that nothing can be done even there.
Mike

Have tried to contact them, they may not understand the license and may credit you if you explain it to them.

Again Reggie was opposed to this course of action. Frank proved to be a liability, he was a wanted man hidden away in a flat in Dagenham. He wanted to be part of the Kray empire but in reality was a child in a heavyweight wrestlers body. He became agitated and threatened their empire, they didn't want to but had no choice except to kill him. Had he lived he would probably have spent the rest of his dysfunctional life in Broadmoor. Speaking of prison, it's not fun and it's mostly full of imbeciles.

You could always try the old fashioned form of retribution

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2015 04:17PM by MechaBits.

Quote
leadinglights
Somebody should really come up with something, preferably legal, that can be done to force compliance with open source licenses.

If you tried to contact them and they ignored you, the next thing you could try might be sending a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP. Apparently this is something that photographers occasionally have to resort to (see this article for additional info).

You also might find some helpful information in this article: 3 Steps for Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff

There have been vigorous debates on this forum regarding when open source licenses do and do not apply to 3D designs (see this thread for example). In many cases an open source license does not legally prevent someone from selling a copy of a design - this is mentioned in the GPL FAQ here. However, it seems (in my personal non-expert opinion) that your specific 3D design would indeed be protected by the Creative Commons license.

You bring up a good point about what the license covers and it reminded me of several articles I had read regarding it. The opinion was the license only covers the file itself, not the object created from it. An example given was someone who publishes a file of an object with the license of no derivatives. If someone was to take the file and include it, unchanged, in another project, that would not be a violation of the license because the file itself has not been changed, nor the object produced by the file. But until a case is brought to court, there is no definite answer.

Quote
MattMoses

Quote
leadinglights
Somebody should really come up with something, preferably legal, that can be done to force compliance with open source licenses.

If you tried to contact them and they ignored you, the next thing you could try might be sending a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP. Apparently this is something that photographers occasionally have to resort to (see this article for additional info).

You also might find some helpful information in this article: 3 Steps for Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff

There have been vigorous debates on this forum regarding when open source licenses do and do not apply to 3D designs (see this thread for example). In many cases an open source license does not legally prevent someone from selling a copy of a design - this is mentioned in the GPL FAQ here. However, it seems (in my personal non-expert opinion) that your specific 3D design would indeed be protected by the Creative Commons license.

Quote
MechaBits
... You could always try the old fashioned form of retribution

But horses heads are so expensive these days.

The product that I designed and that Sterling Applications is making without attribution is a model of a church bell for demonstrating the mechanics of how full circle bells are rung. The problem with a narrow field like church bell ringing is that there is only one or two degrees of separation between all ringers so anybody not in the know would assume that I - a mere hobbyist, had copied the bell sold by a company instead of the other way round.

As far as the licensing goes, the creative commons - attribution share alike license which applied to this model was clear, but pretty much unenforceable without substantial time and money. I guess though that the only satisfaction that I can practically get is the knowledge that Sterling Applications are parasites.

Mike

Lol, for whom the bell tolls, if ever there was any doubt on the tripe that might get taught to people in education...
no wonder there is a lack of quality engineers...you want ding dong pull the rope, next lesson
Seriously though anyone who would buy it needs their head feeling.

Hi guys,

IMHO the model of leadinglights is a reproduction of a mechanism from the early middle ages.
It's just public domain now. It's a nosense to put any licence on it !
If I design a wheel and I post it on thingiverse, did I reinvent the wheel and am I allowed to licence it ?!?
Intellectual Property defined in terms of unused original and creative ideas or works protected by patent (...)
On thingiverse, a lot of Open source licences are mostly missapplied to things that should not be licenced.
And some are even applied to art reproductions, plagiarism or forgery of commercial patented products !

If the object is not a pure creation of your mind, if there's a similar thing that was created before (and maybe copyrighted),
so you cannot claim to be the original designer and you should not put a licence on it.
Even if you spent some time behind your computer to make a model of it.

We should stay humble about beeing "creators". Most of what's on thingiverse cannot be licenced (or should not, for ex. VW keychain...).
Actualy, most have been aldready done someday by somebody else.
Real inventors/creators are pretty unusual. Let's be honnest with ourselves.
Reworking a wade extruder or any bell is not a creation act.
If you're in quest for pride and glory, just go down.
If you don't want your work to be used, just don't publish it.

My humble opinion.

++JM

Quote
J-Max
If I design a wheel and I post it on thingiverse, did I reinvent the wheel and am I allowed to licence it ?!?

If you call it a "circular transportation facilitation device", IP Australia (the Australian Patents Office) will grant you a patent!
[www.ipaustralia.com.au]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2015 08:38PM by julianh72.

---

Follow my Mendel Prusa build here: [julianh72.blogspot.com]

If your company is called Apple here in the States, they would give you a patent too.

Quote
julianh72

Quote
J-Max
If I design a wheel and I post it on thingiverse, did I reinvent the wheel and am I allowed to licence it ?!?

If you call it a "circular transportation facilitation device", IP Australia (the Australian Patents Office) will grant you a patent!
[www.ipaustralia.com.au]

Quote
ElmoC
If your company is called Apple here in the States, they would give you a patent too.

So, what would a "wheel with rounded corners" look like?

---

Follow my Mendel Prusa build here: [julianh72.blogspot.com]

You need to be careful about what is being licensed. While something may be in the public domain, say a musical piece from Brahms, an orchestra that makes a recording of the piece can copyright that performance. In this case, it is not the written music that is copyrighted, but the execution.

While the church bell with frame cannot be copyrighted, the file leadinglights made of the model can be covered by copyright. However, what is produced from sending that file through another process, like a 3D printer, is probably not covered by the license attached to the file.

Quote
J-Max
Hi guys,

IMHO the model of leadinglights is a reproduction of a mechanism from the early middle ages.
It's just public domain now. It's a nosense to put any licence on it !
If I design a wheel and I post it on thingiverse, did I reinvent the wheel and am I allowed to licence it ?!?
Intellectual Property defined in terms of unused original and creative ideas or works protected by patent (...)
On thingiverse, a lot of Open source licences are mostly missapplied to things that should not be licenced.
And some are even applied to art reproductions, plagiarism or forgery of commercial patented products !

If the object is not a pure creation of your mind, if there's a similar thing that was created before (and maybe copyrighted),
so you cannot claim to be the original designer and you should not put a licence on it.
Even if you spent some time behind your computer to make a model of it.

We should stay humble about beeing "creators". Most of what's on thingiverse cannot be licenced (or should not, for ex. VW keychain...).
Actualy, most have been aldready done someday by somebody else.
Real inventors/creators are pretty unusual. Let's be honnest with ourselves.
Reworking a wade extruder or any bell is not a creation act.
If you're in quest for pride and glory, just go down.
If you don't want your work to be used, just don't publish it.

My humble opinion.

++JM

And both of you are entirely missing the point.

ElmoC, If I were too concerned about Intellectual Property I would not have put the design on Thingiverse. While I am a little annoyed at the lack of attribution, I am very annoyed that the Sterling Applications site refers to "bespoke" and design services, giving rise to a natural interpretation that the bell is their own design.

J-Max, a song like "A Hard Day's Night" is a song composed by Lennon and McCartney, The Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, each of these is a unique example of a generic type. There is no doubt at all that the Bell with Frame sold by Sterling Applications is to my design and made from STL files released by me. It is as unique as "A Hard Day's Night" is from "Staying Alive"..

Neither am I concerned that they are selling these bells - if they sold thousands of them at £1000 each I would be delighted (but perhaps annoyed at myself for not spotting the market). It is that they are trying to steal my reputation that causes me the most concern.

Mike

Quote
ElmoC
You need to be careful about what is being licensed. While something may be in the public domain, say a musical piece from Brahms, an orchestra that makes a recording of the piece can copyright that performance. In this case, it is not the written music that is copyrighted, but the execution.

While the church bell with frame cannot be copyrighted, the file leadinglights made of the model can be covered by copyright. However, what is produced from sending that file through another process, like a 3D printer, is probably not covered by the license attached to the file.

Quote
J-Max
Hi guys,

IMHO the model of leadinglights is a reproduction of a mechanism from the early middle ages.
It's just public domain now. It's a nosense to put any licence on it !
If I design a wheel and I post it on thingiverse, did I reinvent the wheel and am I allowed to licence it ?!?
Intellectual Property defined in terms of unused original and creative ideas or works protected by patent (...)
On thingiverse, a lot of Open source licences are mostly missapplied to things that should not be licenced.
And some are even applied to art reproductions, plagiarism or forgery of commercial patented products !

If the object is not a pure creation of your mind, if there's a similar thing that was created before (and maybe copyrighted),
so you cannot claim to be the original designer and you should not put a licence on it.
Even if you spent some time behind your computer to make a model of it.

We should stay humble about beeing "creators". Most of what's on thingiverse cannot be licenced (or should not, for ex. VW keychain...).
Actualy, most have been aldready done someday by somebody else.
Real inventors/creators are pretty unusual. Let's be honnest with ourselves.
Reworking a wade extruder or any bell is not a creation act.
If you're in quest for pride and glory, just go down.
If you don't want your work to be used, just don't publish it.

My humble opinion.

++JM

Unfortunately the theft of reputation is probably even more difficult to prove, how to place a value on it?
Like the ebike scam on Indiegogo where people used my images for the JayHawk campaign, and almost got away with $35k...Deliberate fraud & IP Theft but what are IndieGogo going to do to chase the Copyright Infringement Fines, what can they do to repair any consequential damages to my reputation?

So far NADA!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2015 06:26AM by MechaBits.

I wonder if "Passing off" would fit the bill [en.wikipedia.org]
Not that I am willing to try it - life is far too short, but in the modern world where goodwill of those you deal with comes as much from your design abilities as your physical skills it may be something the courts would uphold.

Mike

Quote
MechaBits
Unfortunately the theft of reputation is probably even more difficult to prove, how to place a value on it?
Like the ebike scam on Indiegogo where people used my images for the JayHawk campaign, and almost got away with $35k...Deliberate fraud & IP Theft but what are IndieGogo going to do to chase the Copyright Infringement Fines, what can they do to repair any consequential damages to my reputation?

So far NADA!

Not sure as they are not trying to be you or your trademark.
It's a sad old world, you would think someone with some skills in printing would want to design their own objects,
just plain lazy to DL another model and release as is, I doubt they used Shapeways for the parts...they would need to sell it for £300 if they had.

One of the reasons many of the things I put on grabcad dont have models, is not me being tight or entering into the giving spirit, it's I feel that by 'giving away' the idea is enough, and by giving away I dont mean they have the rights, but they could develop a variation of it, if they could be bothered.

I think you missed the meaning of my post. I was referring to the comment made by J-Max about copyright of public domain works. I understand that you are only wanting acknowledgment of your work.

Quote
leadinglights
And both of you are entirely missing the point.

ElmoC, If I were too concerned about Intellectual Property I would not have put the design on Thingiverse. While I am a little annoyed at the lack of attribution, I am very annoyed that the Sterling Applications site refers to "bespoke" and design services, giving rise to a natural interpretation that the bell is their own design.

I am with MightyMouth. Contact the seller(s) and ask them if they can provide attribution for your work, assuming they are using or basing their design on your work. Mention you are not interested in payment for the design, just credit for your work.

Throwing a tantrum will just cause them to circle their wagons (or whatever the British version is) and short of hiring a lawyer to get your name on a design, being polite is about all you can do.

Quote
Kurzaa
I am with MightyMouth. Contact the seller(s) and ask them if they can provide attribution for your work, assuming they are using or basing their design on your work. Mention you are not interested in payment for the design, just credit for your work.

Throwing a tantrum will just cause them to circle their wagons (or whatever the British version is) and short of hiring a lawyer to get your name on a design, being polite is about all you can do.

Already done on the 5th November.
In the interest of completeness I have even attached a copy of what I wrote to them. I have had no reply and the only contact details that I have is the email address.

Quote

The Church Bell with Frame that you are selling is my design and was published on Thingiverse as [www.thingiverse.com]
On the Thingiverse site it is clearly marked as being released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license as shown at [creativecommons.org] Please note that this licence requires that you give proper attribution.
The model or models which you show on your web site and on others through which you sell appear to be attractive and well made and the price is reasonable for the skill and labour of making it or them. However, by not attributing my design you are depriving me of reputation and may lead people to think that I have copied your design.
I must request that you acknowledge that this is my design on the appropriate page on your website and on any other electronic or printed documents directly relating to this product.
The attribution need only be something like "a design by Leadinglights"
Please address this soonest.

Mike Simpson (Leadinglights)

Mike

I think I would have started with "I believe the Church Bell with Frame..." and I would appreciate if you..." rather than "I must request that...", but otherwise that's about all you can do in this case.

Alternatively, you might consider adding an update to your design on Thingiverse. Something along the line of:

Quote

[11-10-2015] I recently discovered that the Sterling Applications company and their distributors in the UK have been printing my design for sale. If you would care for additional photos of the final prints or do not have access to a 3D printer, I encourage you to visit their website.

This way, anyone who finds you design will know it is yours, not a copy of theirs. It also might eventually lead to their providing proper attribution if enough people follow the link from Thingiverse to Sterling and start asking questions.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2015 03:15PM by Kurzaa.

Or do a whois send the take down notice to the web hosts, see what happens?

I like Kurzaa's idea. Can I use it under license?

Quote
leadinglights
I like Kurzaa's idea. Can I use it under license?

Yes, but only not for profit

The problem with that approach is, they screwed you, and what your supposed to be nice...
same with the people who used my images, they only tried to get me on board, after release of campaign when they where rumbled...he gave me all this bull about how he'd already invested 6k of his own money...I said on what? Not me that's for sure!