3D scanner

There's an instructable (http://www.instructables.com/id/3-D-Laser-Scanner/?ALLSTEPS) for a simple 3D scanner. It's basically a laser that's shined through a glass bar (to defract the beam in to a line) and a digital camera while the object is spun on a table at a known rate. A script then creates a 3D model from the video.

What'd be very useful here is a RepRap head that can spin around an object on the table, which builds a 3D model and allows you to extrude a copy.

I was talking to a prof of mine yesterday about a 3d scanner he has in his office. While traying to scan a small toy--hello kitty--he generated a surface with 50,000+ points. Two things wrong with this: it took him a half-hour to load it in Inventor to work with it; and it was a surface, not a solid. Unless this cool little instructable comes with some more advanced software, you might have a harder time with this than you think.

Demented

Yeah, the copier idea is fascinating. One thing that can be simplified is just by using a laser line level. These are often sold for about 10 euros.

[en.wikipedia.org]

There are many scripts on the internet to convert the pictures to 3D coordinate files, but making the thing convert to an actual printable model is something that needs some work. Would really be a nice feature to be able to 'fax', scan and copy actual stuff!

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

... you can use [meshlab.sourceforge.net] for good quality reducing high-count 3D-data and for 'skinning' dot-clouds with a surface to produce STL-data ...

Viktor

lets not forget this one

[splinescan.co.uk]

Also a version that uses a bit less tech. Light, pencil, and a camera.

[www.vision.caltech.edu]

That laser scanner is freaking awesome!!! After I finish this whole RepRap thing, that's totally my next project.

Does anyone know the legal implications of copying/faxing objects? Would we have to do look to see if there is a patent number engraved somewhere on the object first? Is there such a thing as copyright for physical objects?

I'm not a copyright hardliner, but it would be nice if what we RepRappers support publicly is legally clear.

Generally an image of a thing which is publicly available is the property of the image maker. Thus I cannot stop you from selling a picture of the building or car which I designed. The exception occurs when I can argue that your use of the image damages my ability to profit from my IP. For instance, if I were to sell handbags with images of the Coach or Guchi labels on them those manufacturers would charge me with trademark violation.
If the major value of a thing is contained in its' IP then transferring images which contain that data become problematical. For instance, I cannot be charged with IP crime for selling an image of a Guchi bag unless I use that image to imply something about another bag, the value resides in the object not the image; but if I sell an image of Mickey Mouse I am in violation because Mickey is deemed to exist primarily as a community of images. If I sell a picture of a pirate DVD of Fantasia I am not in violation because no image of Mickey is obtainable from the picture, even though the images exist on the DVD and would be actionable if I sold the DVD.

So if I create a 3D image of an object that image belongs to me unless I use it in a way that damages someone else's rights. This covers the vast majority of images that will ever be made, including most images of industrial objects. Unless the image of the object is copyrighted or trademarked (like say a Coke bottle) I can reproduce and distribute the image as I please.
If the item is trademarked, the mark holder will have to prove actual damages through the mere use of the image.
If an object is copyrighted (normally applicable only to objects which are parts of an image community, such as a Mickey doll, rather than items which are merely distinctive, such as Crocs and Coke bottles), then issues of fair use pertain, and while these are not as clear as they used to be, it is likely that preservation imaging (backup copies) and shifting of owned IP across locations, times, and media are allowed,(all for personal use) although distribution of entire copies is likely not, even if originals are no longer available.

Now when we come to printing the 3Dimage things get complicated and indeed this is untested legal territory as far as I know. Jeff Koons has made "art pieces" that are exact copies of trademarked items but in new media and has escaped IP prosecution, but the production of "industrial items" will likely be looked on with less deference. The ability to produce public domain and patented objects from 3D images has never been subject of legal precedent as far as I know.

Producing a copy of copyrighted object violates the holders rights in all cases except (possibly) the creation of a replacement item for an owned item which has been lost by a rightful owner without prejudice to the rightholders rights. Thus if your house burns down and your Micky action figures are destroyed you would be entitled under copyright to reproduce them from scanned images, but you would not be so entitled if you gave the originals to a friend.

For an item under trademark the mark holder would have to prove that the reproduction would harm or dilute the the value of the mark. This is the area into which copies of designer items such as Crocs or Guchi bags would fall. In order to win a case the markholder would have to prove 3 things; 1. That the item is sufficiently like the trademarked item that a person normally conversant with such items would recognize it as the marked item, or as part of a family of marked items; 2. That such a person would not take the item as a satire or other legitimate derivative work of the marked item; 3. That the item is either sufficiently inferior to or sufficiently more plentiful than the marked item that it damages the markholders brand or ability to do business. This is a higher barrier and would probably not be met by personal use of an item (as opposed to public display or distribution).

Items which you create, and items "in the public domain" ie those not covered by IP law, are obviously available for reproduction at any time. This would cover the vast majority of things in the everyday world such as cups, plates, tires and coathooks.

The last, and stickiest area is that of patented items.
Consider however, that most of the parts of your car are not patented, nor is the car itself. The manufacturer retains control by virtue of the fact that it is uneconomical to compete with him. A piston, or washer fluid reservoir cap, cannot be patented, they are considered obvious or covered by prior art. Instead each model car has pistons and reservoir caps that are marginally different from every other models'. The manufacturer needs thousands of these so can afford to build a machine to produce thousands at a trivial cost per unit, but current manufacturing methods make it prohibitively expensive per unit to make even hundreds of such items. This is one area where RepRap could have enormous impact, by breaking such monopolies.
But back to the assumption that you wish to reproduce an actual patented object. As with trademark law, a patentholder must prove damage in order to obtain relief. First this makes it less likely that he or she will pursue the case as any relief won may be less valuable than the cost of the case. Second, and most significantly if the holder is making their money through the mass distribution of the item (likely), they must show that I, by my infringement, measurably effected their ability to make money. But if I am only making 1 or 2 of something for my own use and not distributing them to others, then it is unlikely that my failure to buy those few of the thousands they sold had any measurable effect on their actual sales. Thus no harm.
If I use my RepRap to make lots of patented items which I then give or sell to other folks, I will be open to trouble, but if I rent time on my RepRap to people who print patented parts I am probably in the clear as long as none of them operate a "criminal enterprise" with my machine.

That is my understanding of the current situation Re; the use and reproduction of 3D images as a (if I may say so) reasonably bright layman with a strong interest in these (IP) matters and a decently wide and deep run through the literature. Obviously, widely available Fab technology would provide lots of impetus for manufacturers and IP holders to press for changes to the laws, particularly as regarding the distribution of images of trademarked and patented objects and the idea of contributory or distributed vs specific harm arising from objects being printed by large numbers of people. It is also possible we will see the rise of patent and trademark enforcement groups similar to todays' RIAA, which will seek to increase the value of relief won by decreasing the cost per unit of legal action. But this post is too long already, so I'll leave such things as an exercise for the reader ;-)

Jared,

Thanks much for those two links. It's heartening to see that 3D scanning can be done without breaking the bank. The patent status of the Caltech work sounds like it could become an issue. IANAL, but it seems to me that pure algorithms cannot be patented, so this can probably be worked around legally.

Larry Pfeffer,
Lexington, MA, USA
ursine at gmail d0t c0m

A very nice, informative post BDolge. I like it when a person puts a bit of thought into a post. Very meaty.

Demented

> Very meaty.

(grabs mustard and french loaf)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2008 08:36PM by Forrest Higgs.

Yes, thank you very much, BDolge, for such a great answer!

Here is a related Slashdot article;
[news.slashdot.org]
Basically a US court has said that a digital wireframe is indeed the property of it's creator rather than of the creator of the original item. Good news for our side as they say, and it damages one possible method for "protecting" IP from scanning, which would be to assert that the copyright that applies to the plans etc. for an item extend to the item itself as an instance of the design. This decision appears to close off that approach. Of course in US law nothing is final until SCOTUS speaks, but this is precedent on our side.

That's awesome!!! So, now, we can start scanning and printing at will? Last time I ever buy a cup.

Hand Key II biometric reader

some problem their?

error: 19
warning : 18, 12, 68, 58

how to solve
tell Technical

my email: hariramanece@yahoo.co.in

Hey guys, we're working with Lulzbot toward a Kickstarter for open source 3D scanners (hardware + software). Can you help us by filling out this survey telling us what to price it at, what resolution is needed, etc.? Greatly appreciated!

https://docs.google.com/a/3dcreationsllc.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEZXV0dvTUYxUktLdkZIaTBqY1JaWFE6MQ

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2013 01:44PM by 3dcreationsllc.

What 3d Scanner can scan in more detail and affordable price?