[chaosharmonic]

On the source-available piece:

I'm not saying I'm for those over open source licenses in general, but Prusa brought up some fair questions when discussing the OCL. Essentially: define "personal use." Have I violated a non-commercial license if I print this keyboard and then use it to build someone a website? Does CC-NC mean a Prusacaster -- or any guitar knob with such a license for that matter -- is strictly barred from being taken on tour? Or used to record albums that are then sold? (And I say "guitar" knob, but I'm choosing an example a little consciously that could exist in any variety of controls, instrument and otherwise.)

Where are the lines of that when it's physical things? How far downstream does that go if it isn't CC-NC-SA in particular?

I'm not really sure that Creative Commons had the idea of physical production in mind, given that it dates back to a time when we were more broadly talking about digital piracy, and I honestly haven't kept up with its evolution much in more recent years. But maybe it just doesn't make the same sense for designs of physical things, for comparable reasons to why it wouldn't make sense for code -- and, conversely, open source projects that opt to use CC licenses for assets.

(None of this would stop me from attempting to build/mod one for fun, mind you. It just raises what a more averse person might call risks, and what I will at least call curiosities.)

[userbinator]

Where are the lines of that when it's physical things?

The automotive aftermarket has largely settled that; even without the original design files, it's perfectly legal to make compatible parts, patents and the like notwithstanding. You can build an entire "small block Chevy" engine wholly from parts that GM did not make, and it will fit perfectly in a car that originally had the "genuine" one.

IANAL but as long as you don't violate any patents they have (if any) nor use their trademark, feel free to make and sell keyboards that look like theirs (not that a keyboard of their design is particularly distinctive anyway.)

[Analemma_]

Hasn’t Creative Commons disavowed or at least really downplayed the NC license for exactly these reasons? There are so many ambiguities and headaches involved that the only advice I’ve ever seen is not to use it.

[hananova]

Rule of thumb:

- If it’s a company doing an NC license, probably best to be careful because they can make your life hell with lawyers.

- If it’s a random joe doing an NC license, feel free to ignore it because they don’t have the money to defend it anyway. Especially so if it’s CC-BY-NC-ND, people that pick that one are especially likely to be in the all-bark-no-bite category.

At least that’s how one of the companies I worked for treated CC licenses… I don’t work there anymore.

[BeefySwain]

I'd love to see more info on this

[chaosharmonic]

Likewise, I was unaware of this (and still see it in use regularly, especially on places like Printables as I've recently gotten my hands on a printer myself)

[dec0dedab0de]

Not a lawyer, but as I understand it the license is a matter of copyright, and the copyright only applies to the design files. So as long as you're making that keyboard for yourself then you should be good to do anything you want with the keyboard, because it is no longer using the license at that point.

Now, what is interesting is if someone were to blatantly violate the license and start manufacturing commercial keyboards. I believe their only recourse would be to revoke their license of the design files, and then it would be copyright infringement. The thing is, I don't know how copyright law would handle any damages.

I don't know if making a physical product could be a violation of copyright, regardless of if you had a license to use the design in the first place. I could definitely imagine a company trying to enforce this, and a judge throwing it out because it should have been handled with patents.

Again, not a lawyer, just speculating on a forum.

[Majromax]

> Not a lawyer, but as I understand it the license is a matter of copyright, and the copyright only applies to the design files. So as long as you're making that keyboard for yourself then you should be good to do anything you want with the keyboard, because it is no longer using the license at that point.

What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?

What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?

What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?

[post-it]

You're asking some pretty niche copyright questions that even a lawyer would have to spend time searching for case law for. It may be more expedient to look for that case law yourself.

[pc86]

If you need to be an attorney to figure out if you're allowed to take a picture of something, we've already jumped the shark.

[post-it]

Not what he asked.

[pc86]

I mean maybe if you take a super pedantic, weaponized autism type of interpretation of the very first question, sure.

[robinsonb5]

Not a lawyer either, but:

> What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?

Probably fair use, provided the design wasn't the main focus of the photo, but merely part of the "set dressing."

> What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?

> What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?

Those questions are simpler - both scenarios would be derivative works of the original files, so covered by the license.

[dec0dedab0de]

but are those derived works copyrightable? I don't think they are.

[robinsonb5]

Copyright law forbids the creation of derivative works (excepting any region-specific fair-use rules) so you're only allowed to create them under the rights granted to you in the terms of the license - thus under this particular license you can't make commercial use of derivative works.

[dec0dedab0de]

But is a physical item a derivative work of it's technical specifications?

If the design files qualify for copyright protections, then modifications to them would clearly be derivative works.

I don't think it is clear if the keyboard itself would be a derivative work, as it almost certainly can't be protected by copyright. This is what patents are for.

[vablings]

> What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?

This is probably acceptable

> What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?

This is probably NOT acceptable

> What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?

If you used that for personal things yes that would be acceptable. I do not think that would give you the right to then sell that as a product neither digitally nor phsically

[galaxyLogic]

What if I'm a sculptor and I design and produce a statue? Shouldn't I still have the copyright to the statue, no matter what kind of machine I used to do the actual sculpting?

[dec0dedab0de]

Yes, but that only applies if you count the keyboard as a work of art worthy of copyright protection.

[dec0dedab0de]

What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?

Hmm, without patents it would definitely be fine to scan an existing one and recreate it. I think this would be fine too, but any time you are clearly going out of your way to skirt the law is a red flag. The thing is, I don't even think technical designs are copyrightable outside of their aesthetic value.

What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?

What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?

If it is indeed covered by copyright, then these would likely be violations, though I guess it depends on how prominent it is in the staged photo.

...this stuff is fun to think about.

[thatcat]

obviously the photos and media is covered by copyright, but rendering your own probably is not.

[bityard]

Yeesh. People. C'mon. It's okay to use some common sense here.

Keychron is a keyboard/mouse company. It is VERY reasonable to interpret "non-commercial use" as meaning "don't sell mice/keyboards built or derived from these designs."

NOT "we are going to sue you if a 3D-printed copy of our mouse ends up in the background shot of your movie," or similar contrived madness.

[fweimer]

I think CC originally did have producing physical items in mind. For example, one use case for the NC licenses for photos was that you can pay someone to make a print and frame it for you. This went sideways when Flickr offered to streamline the process because for many creators, NC means that no one (else) should be able make a profit using the work.

[ddtaylor]

I don't think they are interested in those nuances. I think they just want to get free PR for a widget they are making.