Copyright Policy
For better or worse, we’ve hit a milestone in the history of digital fabrication. We’ve just received our first DMCA takedown notice for a copyrighted object. Due to the DMCA we are required to respond to takedown notices in a timely manner or risk losing protection under the “Safe Harbor” provision. Since we’d like to continue to be a place where people can openly share their designs with the world, we have complied.
If you are unfamiliar with the DMCA and/or the Safe Harbor provision, there is an excellent FAQ at Chilling Effects. In this day and age, knowing is half the battle.
As a result of this, we’ve also had to learn more about the DMCA. To this end, we’ve updated our legal page with a new DMCA specific policy. Thanks to our friends at Etsy, we were able to quickly add the appropriate language to that document. Please take a read and feel free to give us your feedback and opinions in the comments.
In the interest of openness, you can also read the email that prompted our new policy below the fold. You may have noticed that this design has been getting a lot of attention on Boingboing and imaterialize.
Von: Ulrich Schwanitz <[redacted]>
Datum: 17 February 2011 18:22:51 CET
An: “info@thingiverse.com” , “support@thingiverse.com”
Betreff: Copyright infringementTo whom it may concern:
The nature of your complaint and an exact description of where the material about which you complain is located within the site;
The electronic models “Penrose Triangle by artur83″, located on your site at
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6456
and “Penrose Triangle Illusion by chylld”, located on your site at
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6474
infringe on our copyright.
In the case of a copyright/trademark dispute, identification of the copyrighted/trademarked work that you claim has been infringed and a statement by you that you have a good-faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright/trademark owner, its agent, or the law
The copyrighted work that has been infringed is called “Impossible triangle 5″ – 12 cm” and located at
http://www.shapeways.com/model/206411/impossible_triangle_5____12_cm.html
Since I am the copyright owner, I have a good-faith belief that that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner.
Your name, address, telephone number, and email address
Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz
[redacted]A statement by you that the above information is accurate and, in the case of a copyright/trademark dispute, that you are the owner of the copyright/trademark involved or are authorized to act on behalf of that owner
I hereby certify that the above information is accurate and I am the owner of the copyright involved
Your electronic or physical signature
Signed,
Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz
Subscribe by RSS
Print the Impossible Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 11:23 am
[...] unfortunately, this thing was the target of a DMCA takedown notice and is no longer available on [...]
Billy Zelsnack Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 11:50 am
How exactly is this an infringement? Did they just take the exact file and put it up on thingiverse? From what I can tell you can not even download the file from shapeways.
Of course Thingiverse must comply with the DMCA rules, but I hope that the authors of 6456 and 6474 file a false DMCA report against Ulrich. Especially considering how hypocritical the guy is being since his work is based upon the Penrose triangle.
Sublime Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 11:55 am
Unless this is Oscar Reutersvärd I can’t see how he claims copyright ownership.
P.S. the DMCA is only a U.S. law and only effects 4.5% of the worlds population and there is no other country in the world willing to restrict its people that much.
Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz must be on crack, artists are allowed to make art even if it resembles something else and the penrose triangle has been made by many artists before this guy.
All the more reason to create a site in a non-militant country where the people are free and have rights.
Tweets that mention Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy -- Topsy.com Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 11:57 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Guan Yang, Andrew Plumb. Andrew Plumb said: Looks like we've hit a milestone in the whole #3dprinted/copyright/IP world: @Thingiverse Received a DMCA Takedown – http://bit.ly/ftGCDf [...]
Sublime Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 11:58 am
And before bending over to every threat why not try getting your freedom back before you have none.
Electronics Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/ Fighting for your rights.
Andreas Fuchs Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 11:59 am
Well, congratulations, thingiverse! Definitely chillingeffects material. At any rate, this sounds like very bad sportsmanship on Dr. Schwanitz’s part: Pose a riddle, then send DMCA takedown notices for published solutions (see http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663226/impossible-penrose-triangle-now-possible-with-3-d-printing).
I’m disgusted.
Joris Peels Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 11:59 am
This is a milestone for 3D printing. It is also a sad day for 3D printing.
I’m happy this happened now, so we can all think and talk about this. This is important for us to do as an industry. I am sad that such a thing should happen though.
If a person poses a riddle he must want people to solve it. So when someone does solve it, is a DMCA takedown notice the right response?
I apologize for publishing the post that set this in motion. I hope in the end this will move the industry forward.
Joris
Lasivian Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:01 pm
I want to know how Ulrich Schwanitz can claim copyright over a design that they did not invent. The “Penrose Triangle” has been around more than 50 years.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PenroseTriangle.html
“The Penrose triangle, also called the tribar (Cerf), tri-bar (Ernst 1987), impossible tribar (Pappas 1989, p. 13), or impossible triangle, is an impossible figure published by Penrose and Penrose (1958). Penrose triangles appear prominently in the works of Escher, who not only inspired creation of this object (Escher 1954, Penrose and Penrose 1958), but also subsequently publicized it.”
That Ulrich printed it is in fact a violation of the 1958 copyright on the object if the copyright holder chooses to enforce it.
His printing it does not give him any copyright to it anymore than my writing down a story someone else is telling gives me copyright to it.
Who invented the Penrose triangle? | i.materialise 3D Printing Service Blog - watch us make the future (feel free to join in) Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:06 pm
[...] is how I ended the post a few hours ago, but meanwhile a DMCA Takedown notice was sent to Thingiverse for Artur’s solution to the Penrose triangle. So Ulrich thinks he has copyright and is forcing Thginverse to remove the file that Artur created. [...]
Cameron MacLachlan Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:12 pm
“Schwanitz is a Netherlands-based designer who has tapped a rapid prototyping service to produce what he claims to bea bona fide 3-D Penrose triangle.”
Are you kidding? He’s based in the Netherlands, and he’s invoking a US law to get this taken down? Besides, how can you have a copyright on a physical shape? If I go design something similar in OpenSCAD and upload it here, is it going to get taken down too?
davr Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:14 pm
You should file a DMCA Counter-notice. There’s no way he can copyright this. And why does he mention trademark in his notice? It’s like he copied and pasted from a form letter and didn’t even proofread it.
Ulrich Schwanitz is an ass.
Also Thingiverse, why are you protecting him by leaving out his contact information? There is no reason you should be afraid of posting that, since he submitted it to you.
Andreas Fuchs Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
One more note, I do hope artur83 and chylld file a counter-claim (provided, of course theirs are original creations, which I’ll assume!) – the forms and procedures for this are explained pretty well on YouTube (and note that legal battle may ensue – hope the EFF will be interested in helping out, legally): http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=59826
I’d love to see these models back on Thingiverse, and Artur’s honor restored!
Billy Zelsnack Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:22 pm
False DMCA Consequences
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlgB1AD5hI
Sublime Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:23 pm
Further more I don’t believe that Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz provided any files to copy under the DMCA laws nor did chylid use any of his original pictures or work. This is like claiming someone who made a replacement part for your car is infringing on some copy right.
Sublime Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
“Since we’d like to continue to be a place where people can openly share their designs with the world, we have complied.”
Maybe you don’t understand the word OPENLY
I for one will be removing my content if they don’t stand up for Chylid’s rights.
ftc Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
@sublime: We shouldn’t be angry with Thingiverse over this, I don’t believe they have the resources to fight over one model. They can do more good by hosting GPL designs. However I think we as patrons of thingiverse should be doing everything in our power to deal with this problem such as boycotting Shapeways and sending them angry letters. Also the EFF has been fighting this exact problem for a very long time so if nothing else donating money to them will help fix the problem in general.
Anon Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
@Billy Zelsnack: The “good faith” part is important. If you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand copyright like this guy filing the claim, then it’s not a “false”.
@Sublime: Commonly a host removes the content no matter what, complying with all takedown notices. The user can stand up for their own rights by filing a counter-claim. The host will then restore the content, and the copyright troll will have to get an injunction to continue (which no court will issue in this case, because the claim is idiotic). Considering how easy it is to steal models from Turbosquid and upload them here, I’m glad they comply with takedowns. Actual copyright holders (unlike this guy) shouldn’t have to spend hours convincing a webmaster that they do, in fact, own their own damn content.
Anon Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:49 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a publicity stunt to bring more attention to his own $70 object….in which he’s not innocent in filing this false claim, and the joke will ultimately be on him
Be sure to go here and vote 1/5:
http://www.shapeways.com/model/206411/impossible_triangle_5____12_cm.html
Gerrit Coetzee Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:50 pm
I don’t think he has the copyright he thinks he has.
KRtCirKid Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
this is simply nuts! what bothers me most is the fact that there hasn’t even been any juridical procedure/order before action is being taken, just some guy from the netherlands speaking law.. threatening people. i think I’m going to claim the IP for “squares” and blow up thingiverse.. imposing law from the faraway banana republic I’m located at.. this is disappointing!
JeremyRuhland Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
Anyone want to streisand effect this? I just wanna see the STL because the pictures aren’t doing it for me.
ftc Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 1:24 pm
I jumped to conclusions in my earlier post, it looks like he is just a user on Shapeways not an employee. So I think Anon has the correct idea to just down vote his penrose triangle. Boycotting Shapeways won’t do any good since they don’t seem to be involved in this.
eagleapex Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
Both designs are a derivative of an illustration of a Penrose triangle by Oscar Reutersvärd
The second derivative on Thingiverse was made form scratch and is an improvement because it’s printable on a MakerBot.
Wikipedia discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Penrose_triangle#Copyright_violation
John Hart Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
I can’t argue with the decision to comply with the takedown request, as the alternative would have presumably threatened the ability of Thingiverse to host any content at all.
While the subtleties of copyright law and the legal distinctions between actual objects, files describing them and printed “copies” are so easily missed or misrepresented by copyright holders, This will only become a more common problem in the future.
As long as the DMCA has this much power to cow isps and hosts into removing content, regardless of the legal status of that content, perhaps Thingiverse needs to be hosted in another jurisdiction
Surely there are plenty of countries or organisations that would be very happy to host Thingiverse (or something serving the same purpose)?
As Joris mentioned above, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to address this now, when the stakes are not quite as high as they might be a few years from now.
My 2c
John
chylld Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 2:34 pm
I’m the contributor of thing #6474, and this morning’s breakfast news has certainly been more interesting than normal.
My work was a derivative of artur83′s work, which (from what I can gather) was apparently derived from seeing Ulrich Schwanitz’s design first-hand. Therefore there is a possibility that I based thing #6474 on an exact likeness of Ulrich’s design, hence the copyright concerns.
I will soon deliver an entirely new design to Thingiverse that is based on nothing other than Oscar Reutersvärd’s painting from 1934.
Thingiverse will have its Penrose Triangle back… and more!
macegr Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
I agree with an initial takedown in the case of a report, but believe that it should be put back up if no merit is found in the claim. Rolling over and just deleting the content is lazy. The exact Penrose figure made of blocks was drawn in 1934 and was even featured on a Swedish postage stamp in 1982…come on! http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PenroseTriangle.html
Dave Durant Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 3:02 pm
Is this where I make my prediction on what the most-printed Thing of 2011 will be?
Billy Zelsnack Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
It might make for a nice symbolic badge. I should CAD one up as a badge for my cupcake.
Mihara Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 3:27 pm
Actually, the STL file itself appears to still be present on the Amazon file storage somehow. At least, one of the model viewer pages still works, and references the file, which can be downloaded. Just so you know.
This had better become a court case. Courts, supposedly, exist to discover and settle the truth as seen by law.
Triffid hunter Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 3:46 pm
So where’s the evidence of his work being copied? something being recreated from scratch comes under patent law or nothing, no copying has taken place here. Other posters have already pointed out that the complainant has not made his files publicly available, so copying would seem to be impossible!
Thingiverse, you have set a poor precedent today, that may haunt you for many years if you don’t act quickly and decisively.
Mjay Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
The consensus here seems to be that the guys an idiot for not accepting that someone just stole his design and uploaded it for free. Seriously, just because we all want to share our designs doesn’t mean we should force it upon others. I’m reminded of the magazine that stole a complete article, and replied to the original author when she demanded retribution that “But honestly Monica, the web is considered “public domain”.
Stop being naive, and let the poor sap have his design. It IS a nice take on the Penrose triangle, and he doesn’t want it open source, that IS his choice. This isn’t the “Big bad industry/evil guy” vs. the free internet crusade you all want it made out to be. It’s a case of a designer who didn’t want CC, and correctly enforced his right to have unrightfully copies removed. And this wasn’t “The Penrose triangle” It is a particular choice of a 3D object which projects in 2D to the typical depiction of a Penrose triangle. Depending on definitions the Penrose triangle is either a 2D illusion or a 4D mathematical object, which projects into 2D in this particular way.
#14 Sublime. If I “wrote” and “recorded” the once popular song by Britney Spears, “Ups I did it again” I AM infringing on her copyright. The same applies to making copies of spare parts for an automobile, though this isn’t the most enforced part of copyright law. You can make a spare part, but if by “Making” you mean building an exact copy as what happened here, then you simply don’t have the rights. No one here made a novel or new design inspired by the original file, they just fired up their favorite 3D modeler and tried to make an exact copy. It doesn’t matter if you feel that you made it because you spend hours trying to get it just right, you just created an exact copy of a design which wasn’t under a license that allowed you to do that.
macegr Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 4:40 pm
Mjay,
We have no idea if it’s an exact copy, because Ulrich’s 3D information was and is NOT AVAILABLE. To any observer, the model shown on Shapeways was intentionally presented to look just like the 2D illusion drawn in 1934. The actual method of creating the illusion was independently developed by artur83, and may even be different from Ulrich’s 3D model. Knowing that the illusion was possible may have helped, but this is reverse engineering, not illegal copying.
Julian Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 5:00 pm
#31. Mjay – You are correct overall but that logic doesn’t for sure apply in this case. While yes it would be copyright if they tried to make a exact copy of a design which wasn’t under a license that allowed you to do that. That is not what is happening unless the original poster decided that he wanted that exact 3d model and tried to recreate it. It is more likely the poster saw the design and said hey thats a cool idea and then went about recreating a classic piece of art in 3d. To use your Britney analogy you can’t decide to write and record a song that was copyright and is now public domain you can’t claim copyright. Yes you have a new version of it but the original idea is still public domain. In this case both models are new ideas based off the public domain penrose triangle, because one person comes up with a new interpretation on the idea and another does too doesn’t give the first a copyright as the original idea is public domain.
mass_producer Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
Copyright does not protect ideas… Only the expression of ideas.
One can take the long hard road and copy the expression of an idea, from scratch and still be in violation of copyright.
Good artists copy, great artists steal.
Of course, copyright/DMCA applying to hardware has been a bit of gray area… I say let the thingiversian that got taken down sue and set some legal precedent. The law is backwards looking – if you want to change the law, you gotta play by their rules.
Fairey vs. AP getting settled out of court probably set us back a fair bit when it comes to fair use and transformative works
—–
Lastly, Mjay – I agree with many of your points. Just because *you* want it freely distributed does not mean *every* person wants their work freely distributed.
If the options are to share freely or be submissive to a community that thinks everything must be shared… Yikes! That is NOT the democratization of anything.
krtckd Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 5:32 pm
Copyriots *rofl
Sublime Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 6:20 pm
@MJay I am glad I live in a country where we have laws that allow anyone to make replacement parts for anything they want. This is because we have a law that makes it illegal to force a consumer to purchase replacement parts from the manufacturer. You cannot use their designs, but you can engineer a replacement and sometimes a function dictates its form as in a tire or the penrose triangle.
jstkatz Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 6:23 pm
Mjay
I am not a lawyer but have had an interest in IP law for a long time. You’re comparing apples and oranges with your examples. A shape is not a book is not a song is not a blog post. Copyright came about after the invention of the printing press to keep publishers from verbatim copying each others works. Physical objects generally can’t be copyrighted. Designs generally can’t be copyrighted. Schwanitz may have something that would qualify for a design patent but a patent is not a copyright. You can’t use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to enforce take down of a patent violation. Of course there is no patent violation because Schwanitz hasn’t filed for a patent. The only thing that could trigger copyright in a case like this is if someone had copied his files directly. Excluding that situation Schwanitz was wrong to use the DMCA. There is no reason to assume he knew he was wrong when he did it. A review of the conversations surrounding this and other IP spats online will show you how little most people know about the details of American IP law.
Isaac Dietz Said,
February 18, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
Personally, I am happy that we get to be part of setting the precedent for this kind of claim with respect to digital fabrication. Put your helmet on!
chylld Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 12:14 am
I have uploaded an entirely new, original and fundamentally improved version of the Penrose Triangle 3D model here:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6513
I own the copyright to this object, if anyone. And I ask that everyone share the heck out of it!
Richard Gain Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 3:42 am
@chylld Brilliant! I don’t even have printer yet but now I want one even more. This new design has a completely different solution to the challenge and works extremely well. In the photo it actually looks better than the original on Shapeways. Even when you know how the illusion works it’s really hard to see it in its true, inverted, state.
This is a great positive response to the IP challenge. It doesn’t make the problem go away but it’s a refreshingly different view.
Richard Gain Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 3:59 am
I just downloaded the STL straight from Thingiverse to my iPhone and opened it in Netfabb 3D viewer. It renders perfectly as you rotate the object with your finger but it really messes with your brain as it keeps inverting.
Forget the Schwanitz version; this is way more cool!
André Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 4:00 am
In the interest of transparency would it be possible to include a notice on the takedown in compliance with the DCMA instead of just an error message for the entries of the removed items?
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6456
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6474
Gijs Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 4:22 am
Even after all that has been said, I still believe that Ulrich has some rights to this model, that is IF he is the first that has made the illusion as a 3d shape. All the others, including the now improved (great improvement btw Jonathan) version are derivatives.
The thing is, only after Ulrich has posted a 3d printed solution, we knew it was possible to make it in 3d, which makes it so much easier to make it. Before that, it was only a 2D illusion. If someone knows a 3d version of the triangle with cubes that existed before Ulrich, let him or her please stand up.
I don’t believe that using DMCA is the right choice though. He better would have kindly asked Artur and Jonathan first (did he?) People are in most cases quite reasonable.
On the other hand, attribution is the key here. If you make a derivative, fine but say so, and don’t claim it to be yours.
OH72 Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 5:13 am
@Mjay
“It’s a case of a designer who didn’t want CC, and correctly enforced his right to have unrightfully copies removed.”
So you say, but we have yet to see evidence that this is true. What remains to be seen is a)whether this is indeed a copyright case or rather a patent/trademark case, or none of the two b)whether in either case the respective copyright or patent was valid in the region at issue at all.
Julian Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 5:13 am
To bring a little lit into the conversation.
be careful chylld your new design to look at Schwanitz’s wrong and he could have a conniption about it and have all of us sued.
chylld Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 7:41 am
Julian,
There is no need to worry. I have proven in the new thing that it is trivial to derive a 3D form from the original 2D artwork by Oscar Reutersvärd.
He has no grounds to sue Thingiverse or any of its users, and cannot legitimately lodge another DMCA takedown as the new thing is fundamentally superior to whatever his design may have been.
If he wants to accuse anyone of copyright in the future, he will have to show that his model is identical to the copy, and since I made my new one from scratch, I am sure that will not be the case.
Julian Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 10:30 am
Chylld,
I figured as much, I actually saw yours before I made the comment and loved the details you went in to. I love the fact that he lodged the takedown so he would have the only version out there. (I am assuming) and now because of it there are at least five separate models on thingiverse all different from the last.
Elmo Said,
February 19, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
@ Gijs
“Even after all that has been said, I still believe that Ulrich has some rights to this model, that is IF he is the first that has made the illusion as a 3d shape. All the others, including the now improved (great improvement btw Jonathan) version are derivatives.
The thing is, only after Ulrich has posted a 3d printed solution, we knew it was possible to make it in 3d, which makes it so much easier to make it. Before that, it was only a 2D illusion. If someone knows a 3d version of the triangle with cubes that existed before Ulrich, let him or her please stand up.”
Even though this argument doesn’t apply to copyright, but to patents, I know of a similar illusion being conveyed by a 3-dimensional object. It consists of 4 meter-by-meter cubes, and is attached to a wall at the entrance of Heureka, a science center in Helsinki Finland. Pictures here: http://kuvapankki.info/heureka/product.php?idProduct=814&idCat=60
http://kuvapankki.info/heureka/cat.php?idCat=60&page=2&picOrder=uusin
Some text about the architecture, which includes a mention of the sculpture (also about the world’s largest stretch of aperiodic, i.e. non-repeating paving): http://www.heureka.fi/portal/englanti/about_heureka/architecture/
What do you think? Is that prior art or what
It’s been there for as long as I remember, probably from the day it opened, around 1989.
Thingiverse Receives First DMCA Takedown - Hack a Day Said,
February 20, 2011 @ 9:02 am
[...] landmark in home 3d printing was set when [Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz] sent a DMCA takedown notice to Thingiverse.com on users [artur83] and [chylld's] takes on his Penrose triangle [...]
Peter Said,
February 20, 2011 @ 10:58 am
Copyrights are for wimps, douchbags and loosers.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue..
There are plenty of other ways to feel adiquate in this world.
Jake Said,
February 20, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
Can you really copyright a shape? Thats like someone claiming they can copyright a dozen pyramids within another shape. Of course not, it’s ridiculous!
artur83 Said,
February 20, 2011 @ 5:59 pm
I actually have never seen this before,
Just stumbled on it doing my project and had to post:
http://www.francistabary.com/
http://www.francistabary.com/index.php?menu=detail_impossible&num=20
looks awesome!
but it does make me wonder: was it the ONLY solution? or are there more?
Thingiverse Receives First DMCA Takedown | wo-foo.com Said,
February 20, 2011 @ 10:07 pm
[...] landmark in home 3d printing was set when [Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz] sent a DMCA takedown notice to Thingiverse.com on users [artur83] and [chylld's] takes on his Penrose triangle [...]
dethfactor Said,
February 21, 2011 @ 12:47 am
Looks like the first 3d model p2p tracker should be popping up in a few weeks.
artur83 Said,
February 21, 2011 @ 5:14 am
For the sake of discussion I think it’s worth mentioning this:
http://www.advancedproductdesign.se/blog/2011/01/copyright-copyleft-just-copy-and-improve/
Hacksaw Said,
February 21, 2011 @ 8:14 am
He hasn’t applied for a patent and now he won’t be granted one. He released “his” design in the wild wild web which destroys the possibility of gaining patent protection.He didn’t file for a patent because he knew his work wasn’t original therefore he wouldn’t be granted.He didn’t file for copyright because you can’t copyright an object.He used DMCA because he is attempting to gain protection from the portion of that horrible piece of legislation which prohibits reverse engineering. He may have actually been successful but since chyld has released a new model from scratch with a different solution it could not be classified as having been reverse engineered.That would be like saying anyone who ever made an airplane reverse engineered the Wright Flyer.
A Change of (Triangular) Heart Said,
February 21, 2011 @ 9:00 am
[...] following this blog, or have kept an eye on the DIY 3D printing world, you’ll remember the DMCA drama from last week. I’m happy to say that there is a new and interesting development: Ulrich [...]
hawkeyeaz1 Said,
February 21, 2011 @ 1:38 pm
Firstly, I say this DMCA takedown notice is stupid. But let me try to clarify what I think it is:
The issue here is *copyright*, not patent, and it is Ulrich Schwanitz’s particular version of the “Penrose Triangle”, not the “Penrose Triangle” in general.
If someone copied the layout and color scheme of this website. A website isn’t patentable/copyrightable/trademarkable, but the layout and colors are. That is what Ulrich is claiming here. The pictures look like the exact same item in all three pictures, thus copyright issue.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but I think Ulrich has a legitimate case, even if it is a stupid instance.
Zac Slade Said,
February 21, 2011 @ 1:59 pm
I don’t see why you complied at all. A response sure, but the DMCA notice is against the link in the email. That link points to a specific penrose triangle he made and it clearly states on the page and I quote:
“The design files for this model have now been released to the public domain.”
Why the kerfuffle? I mean really? Much ado about nothing. This is a DMCA notice on a design that is clearly marked as being in the public domain…
Am I the only one confused here?
macegr Said,
February 21, 2011 @ 2:46 pm
Zac: you are late to the party, he did not make the design files available until after he withdrew his ridiculous DMCA takedown notice. After a lot of negative publicity.
Tony Said,
February 22, 2011 @ 3:19 am
I hope people copy his model just to spite him. Its the 21st century and it’s called the free-market – which these dirtbags love so much when it comes to exploiting brown people (deregulations, free-trade, and economic liberalization) , but not so much when the people start tapping into its power themselves.
The next few decades, just like emperors, kings, and the aristocracy before them, the nouveau elite are going to fall and I’m going to help.
Is This The First DMCA Notice Over 3D Printer Plans? Said,
February 22, 2011 @ 11:26 am
[...] collects and aggregates 3D printer skeleton called Thingiverse recently pronounced that it’s received a initial ever DMCA takedown notice over a devise for a 3D printer object. To equivocate liability, of course, a site complied. The specific DMCA takedown concerned this 3D [...]
Ben Said,
February 23, 2011 @ 2:05 pm
Then why did the creator place the design files in the public domain?
http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=24093&#msg_24093
Le Ciel et La Terre | New Honorees in the Takedown Hall of Shame Said,
February 25, 2011 @ 2:45 am
[...] Sweden in the mid-1930s. Last week, Thingiverse, a site where users share 3D designs for printing, received a takedown notice for a 3D design of the triangle. Who sent this takedown notice? Not Reutersvärd. The sender and [...]
New Honorees in the Takedown Hall of Shame | Electronic Frontier Foundation Said,
February 25, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
[...] Sweden in the mid-1930s. Last week, Thingiverse, a site where users share 3D designs for printing, received a takedown notice for a 3D design of the triangle. Who sent this takedown notice? Not Reutersvärd. The sender and [...]
New Honorees in the Takedown Hall of Shame | don't tread on cat Said,
February 26, 2011 @ 12:45 am
[...] Sweden in the mid-1930s. Last week, Thingiverse, a site where users share 3D designs for printing, received a takedown notice for a 3D design of the triangle. Who sent this takedown notice? Not Reutersvärd. The sender and [...]
New Honorees in the Takedown Hall of Shame at Fronte Digitale Said,
February 27, 2011 @ 11:02 am
[...] Sweden in the mid-1930s. Last week, Thingiverse, a site where users share 3D designs for printing, received a takedown notice for a 3D design of the triangle. Who sent this takedown notice? Not Reutersvärd. The sender and [...]
Geek & Roll - Blog Archive » Las Impresoras 3D y la Capacidad de Asombro Said,
March 1, 2011 @ 5:08 pm
[...] llamada Dr. Ulrich Schwanitz reclama ser el dueño de los derechos de autor de este diseño y ordeno que se removieran los archivos de los sitios que los [...]
FaceCube! Copy Real Life with a Kinect and 3D Printer by nrp - MakerBot Industries Said,
March 7, 2011 @ 7:01 am
[...] think the Penrose Triangle controversy of last month has definitely proved that if you really want to inspire a maker to build something – show [...]
New Honorees in the Takedown Hall of Shame | GrassrootsHeadlines.com Said,
March 18, 2011 @ 6:02 pm
[...] Sweden in the mid-1930s. Last week, Thingiverse, a site where users share 3D designs for printing, received a takedown notice for a 3D design of the triangle. Who sent this takedown notice? Not Reutersvärd. The sender and [...]
Feature: The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age | Cheap Curt's Said,
April 5, 2011 @ 11:19 pm
[...] same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown notice and demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one) because it allegedly [...]
Tech Reviews » Feature: The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age Said,
April 6, 2011 @ 12:31 am
[...] same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown notice and demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one) because it [...]
Need a New Thingamajig, Just Print It | Beyond Clause 8 Said,
April 6, 2011 @ 6:06 am
[...] This technology has some incredibly amazing potential to make anything, and there are already efforts underway to to disrupt the disruption, care of the DMCA. [...]
The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age | we must know Said,
April 6, 2011 @ 6:43 am
[...] same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown notice and demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one) because it allegedly [...]
The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age « Empress of the Global Universe Said,
April 7, 2011 @ 9:54 am
[...] same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown notice and demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one) because it allegedly [...]
The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age « Euclid Group Said,
May 1, 2011 @ 7:35 pm
[...] same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown notice and demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one) because it allegedly [...]
lei Said,
May 8, 2011 @ 8:10 pm
You may consider the fair use doctrine as a defense. Try having badge holders to seal your works with your identity.
The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age | Funnel the Knowledge Said,
November 16, 2011 @ 7:23 am
[...] same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown notice and demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one) because it allegedly [...]
dmca takedown Said,
February 7, 2012 @ 1:39 am
DMCA intrudes a trademark and the rights owner wants to remove use of the infringing content through the Online instantly. It could change the need to computer file a legal action and search for expensive injunctive comfort.