Parasite selling of 3d warehouse content/CAD plans/ freeware
-
he he, just call me columbo...mam
pav
-
Hi Everyone,
I just wanted to clarify how to get copyrighted material removed from the 3D Warehouse. According the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a copyright owner must submit a written request (by snail mail or FAX) to Google to have the material removed from our site. Emails or submissions through our contact form don't constitute proper notice according to the law - I think this is where Alan has been hitting the 'brick wall.' Each time we receive a request to take down material based on copyright infringement, we direct people to the DMCA procedure found on the following page:
Once the claim has been properly filled out - we remove the content and send the notice to http://www.chillingeffects.org
I know filling out paper may feel like a 'hoop,' but it's necessary for us to comply with the legal terms of the DMCA. Information ownership is important to us, and we need the cooperation of companies that create content, like Form Fonts, to comply with the law.
Please bring up any questions you might have here.
Thanks,
-
I think some of you might be missing something -- There's a larger context to the 'intellectual property' issue that you may not have considered.
I have two aircraft models posted in the 3D Warehouse, the North American Aviation X-15-1 and X-15A-2:
North American Aviation is now part of Boeing. If Boeing wanted to, they can require Google (3D Warehouse) to remove my models, because they alledgedly violate DMCA provisions:
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
This has happened already, at the 3D-digital-model site, TurboSquid:
WWII Bomber: "Trademark Infringement"
This is already entrenched in the plastic-model-kit industry. All model companies now have to pay royalties to produce models of the F-16, railroad cars, Ford Mustangs, etc. The royalties are so egregious (in some cases, $40 per kit,) that many kit manufacturers have severely cut-back their offerings. 3D digital models are being targeted next.
The reason Jody mentions that Google reports DMCA 'takedown' requests to Chilling Effects, is because they are on our side, trying to fight this trend.
Chilling Effects is a joint project, one of the the primary participants being the Electronic Freedom Foundation.
Carried to its extreme, many 3D digital models could disappear from the internet. Consider, for example. the many Star Wars models already in the 3D Warehouse (light sabers, included.) Perhaps, even architectural designs could be included. (Why not?)
Read-up on it. It (generally) pays to be forewarned....
Regards,
Taff -
"Ridiculousness" never stops a lawyer/politician.
Indications are that manufacturers do, indeed, intend to pursue this course of action. Purportedly, you can't even model a Coke can - applying the Coca-Cola graphics/logo/texture to the surface. Just like you can't show a Coke can in a movie, without first paying royalties. (This is just the opposite of "product placement" - where the manufacturer pays the movie-maker to display their product in the movie.) What are these attorneys thinking!?
Railroad modelers can't apply an "Illinois Central" railroad sticker to a model railcar, unless the sticker was purchased from a licensed, authorized producer (i.e.; royalties have been paid.)
This all started with the music industry, wanting royalties whenever someone 'plays' their song. That means on the radio, in a bar or store, at a public event, 'elevator' music, etc. Ideally, they want you to pay each time you play their song, even if it's only you listening. (They haven't been able to figure out how to do that yet. I'm sure they're still working on that one.)
Sure it's nuts, but it's legal...
-
Dear TaffGoch,
Thank you for your detailed description of the problem. It never crossed my mind that anyone would (or could) object to their product and/or design being modelled in Sketchup and/or any other 3D modelling application. It would seem to me that once a product, or design (say a building's structure), is in the public domain, then its image (external form) is public property. I take photographs of buildings all the time, and so it is logical to assume that if current law applies then I should pay a royalty to the architect (or his/her estate) each time I photograph their work. Both a photograph and a 3D model are facsimilies of the real thing, and so are representational. I think it would take exceptional modelling to make an EXACT 3D model of a Ford Mustang, for example, so all the models on the 3D Warehouse are representational, and not EXACT. Perhaps one could change the wording to say Facsimile of Ford Mustang. Lawyers like words, although half of them resort to cliches, stock phrases and plain bad English (I think they must watch too many legal soap operas). Reductio ad absurdum is probably the right approach.
Kind regards,
Bob -
In British law at least, any inanimate object photographed on or from a public street is public domain and therefore free of copyright.
-
Could a 3d model be considered reverse engineering, which is considered fair use?
-
Ridiculous...Things like that ruin a sharing community.
All those CG people that use e.g Star wars models are implicitaly promoting the Star wars films and merchandising. -
Every now and then this discussion emerges on the web.
My suggestion is : use common sense.
Most of us do have a 'gut feeling' when they cross a line.
I think we all feel that making a 3D Coca cola can is OK in a scene, unless it is a mock up to serve for a commercial of a competing product (Pepsi?) or any presentation that could be harmful for the Coca cola Company .
Another common sense thing is not to sell your Star Wars models, because then you make money on the back of Lucas Arts.All very logical not?
The principle should be: Allow it, unless (possible) damage, either in product integrity or financial, to 3td parties is involved
etc... -
When I worked at a resort 30 years ago, servers were given specific instructions about responding to the word "coke", because Coca Cola gave the resort owner specific instructions that if the "problem" persisted legal action would follow.
The resort resturant and bar served Pepsi. If a customer ordered a soft drink or even at the bar when ordering a "Rum and coke" and the server didn't respond with something like, "oh, you mean a Pepsi", then the resort could be in deep trouble. In a manner it seems a reasonalble request; however, when Pepsi signs were posted all over the place it was obvious that the customer knew what wanted when ordering. And the unforunate server would often be criticized for being idiots.
What is more reasonable to assume is that the word is now so common that it has become a general term as well as a brand name. The company has benefited far more because of this and to complain to such an extent as to regulate people's conversations when there is clearly no intent to decieve or profit was/is just plain petty.
-
Thats insane! i feel like i need to whisper the word coke now, just in case i inadvertently mention it in the wrong place and get sued.
More generaly i cant help but think that the entire issue has been blown wildly out of proportion by everyone who stands to male money from theses absurd laws. personally i think the marketing department at coca-cola (and quite a few other places) need a slap and a damm good talking to, maybe that would bring them back in to the real world.
-
These things mostly seem US inspired, as they have an agressive legal culture.
Unfortunately, some of that has crossbreed in Europe as well (medical claims, branding issues etc...) -
@kwistenbiebel said:
These things mostly seem US inspired, as they have an agressive legal culture.
Unfortunately, some of that has crossbreed in Europe as well (medical claims, branding issues etc...)Yes, you're right. In the US, we have several 'liberal' states. One of the most liberal is California (including Hollywood, where the DMCA started.) So, even in the US, it's a common phrase, "...as goes California, so goes America." Eventually, it will spread from California to the rest of the US, then possibly, the rest of the world.
I'm not afraid of posting models -- potentially being in violation. I'm irritated that my freedom to do so (using aforementioned 'common sense') is being hammered by politicians out to make a buck.
Surely, they know that I'll never be in a position to pay royalties. They won't make any money (I wasn't making money in the first place) and Google has to remove the model to satisfy a 'take down' order. No one gains. The model's gone. Thank you, politicians...
-
@remus said:
...personally i think the marketing department at coca-cola (and quite a few other places) need a slap and a damm good talking to, maybe that would bring them back in to the real world.
I fear that THEY portend the emerging 'real world.' THEY think we're 'stuck in the past.' THEY hold politcal power. THEY are 'progressive' while we are 'regressive.'
And I'm certain that THEY would view your 'slap' reference as an indication that you are violent and a danger, and for the common good, you should be removed from society, where you can then attend court-ordered 'anger management' classes.
I'm just glad that Chilling Effects and EFF are on our side -- as is, apparently, Google. Can you imagine what this would do to the internet in general, and to Google specifically? 'Chilling Effects' is appropriately named.
-
@taffgoch said:
And I'm certain that THEY would view your 'slap' reference as an indication that you are violent and a danger, and for the common good, you should be removed from society...
sad but true, i think.
-
@taffgoch said:
North American Aviation is now part of Boeing. If Boeing wanted to, they can require Google (3D Warehouse) to remove my models, because they alledgedly violate DMCA provisions:
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
This has happened already, at the 3D-digital-model site, TurboSquid:
WWII Bomber: "Trademark Infringement"
This is already entrenched in the plastic-model-kit industry. All model companies now have to pay royalties to produce models of the F-16, railroad cars, Ford Mustangs, etc. The royalties are so egregious (in some cases, $40 per kit,) that many kit manufacturers have severely cut-back their offerings. 3D digital models are being targeted next.
Wow...is that true?
It's hard to believe that 12 year old kids represent a threat to these companies by building plastic models.
..yet, with all that has occurred in this now overly PC world, I can see where we may come to a time when no one can be specific about anything for fear of legal repercussions, or the overt greed of some disallows even the most innocuous use of images, etc.
I think I may start some frantic downloading activity at 3DW......LOL
-
@unknownuser said:
Hi Everyone,
I just wanted to clarify how to get copyrighted material removed from the 3D Warehouse. According the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Dumb question - does the DMCA or other treatises really take into account that ebay and the internet (for that matter) are international, and some places will/do not recognize these?
Now, believe me - I am for doing the right thing, but I know that in past and pending cases that lawyers have to jump through international hoops to get things resolved. Litigation can take years.
Rick
-
Rick,
Here Jody speaks on behalf of Google and the 3D Warehouse - he is in charge of obviously - should any copirighted material be uploaded there (think of FormFonts models for instance). Certainly he cannot help with the rest of the internet.
-
Had this discussion with someone yesterday. All knowledge is based on passing on the past. Contemporary property rights often restrict the growth of knowledge.
Sigh......... When you pay a professional photographer for photos of your building design, you can be restricted from posting it on the net without his permission.
-
This problem raised it's head in my workplace last year. Previously we used Aircraft Maintenance Manuals (Boeing/Airbus) to produce Training Manuals. When i say 'used' we refer to the manuals for info and interpret to more simplistic meaning. Manufacturers contacted Aviation Training Schools to inform them that use of diagrams/schematics/drawings etc, whether up-to-date or not, could no longer be used in a 'Training Enviroment' unless 'Agreements' had being put in place.
Now we extensively use SU to help produce aircraft components for diagrams within our manuals and in the classroom it's great to show 3D parts to compliment the diagrams within our manuals.
I know it's an unconventional use for SU but i works great for us.
Boeing/Airbus invest heavily to protect their content from being duplicated outside a maintenance enviroment and if this assault on the 3D warehouse holds water, it'll get messy.
It's a shame as hobbyists who model these offer a great incite into aviation and do the aircraft themselves a great justice.
Advertisement