Copying parts

[taffer 948]

If I got to the stage or scenario where I had a 3D scanner and I had a scan of a tamiya part which I needed to be printed at shapeways for example, there would obviously be a copyright issue for them to print it.

So my question is without a printer of my own to do the duplication.....

A. How much of a percentage change/redesign would it have to be, so it would be acceptable

B. Is there a particular 3D software package which is best at tracking percentage changes between 2 objects?

So for example.... I scan the A5 part on a Thundershot, to be an acceptable STL for shapeways to print for me (without causing trouble) what would be the percentage change of the object to make it an acceptable print? 40%, 60%?

Thanks in advance for your reply

[LongRat 616]

How do you define a percentage change - that's the problem. Change in volume? Length of a single dimension?

Also, you'll be very hard pressed to get a scanner to simply spit out a CAD model suitable for replication. Even with the best scanning technology currently available, you'll almost always need tweak and fix the model which can often be a long and tedious process - it's easier to simply re-model the part in CAD from scratch. And if you do that, you will find yourself changing the design to accommodate improvements, which will automatically distance the part from the original enough for you to probably be pretty safe.

[SteveU30 1011]

Surely just replicating a part in a different material is sufficient? Even if it's just a different type of plastic?

Otherwise how do the likes of GPM, etc... do it?

[bromvw 744]

Even GPM ect make slight changes to the original part . It may only be +/- mm here or there but enough that its not identical . Thats all thats needed to avoid any copyright issues as i understand it

[Champ85 609]

It's homemade, not the same plastic, and not from the original CAD drawing, thus for personal use there should be no issue no matter the dimensions.

If you plan to sell the part, then it should be distinguishable from the original somehow in dimension and design if possible. It's an "aftermarket hop-up" when you think about it.

[taffer 948]

How do you define a percentage change - that's the problem. Change in volume? Length of a single dimension?

Also, you'll be very hard pressed to get a scanner to simply spit out a CAD model suitable for replication. Even with the best scanning technology currently available, you'll almost always need tweak and fix the model which can often be a long and tedious process - it's easier to simply re-model the part in CAD from scratch. And if you do that, you will find yourself changing the design to accommodate improvements, which will automatically distance the part from the original enough for you to probably be pretty safe.

I was thinking of a scanner like the NextEngine 3D, should easily be able to do high quality scan of existing parts

Then the next question would be how do shapeways (other companies available!) ascertain what is copyrighted or not?

If I describe it as a direct replacement for a tamiya A5 part etc etc, does that alert them?

If I say im calling my part TS-5A with no other description, would it pass through?

Or do they await any potential company to approach them to point out its too similar to their own part, so then they block your copy?

I suppose none of this (reproduced or modified parts) has 'flooded' the market yet so is probably deemed nothing to worry about at the moment!

[LongRat 616]

The nextengine will absolutely require some post processing in cad to get it usable. You will find this is the case even with £50,000 machines.

[bromvw 744]

i would think that the simple way to avoid any issues is to perhaps brand the item - something like Taffer Co printed on it - that way there is no way it can be mistaken for a original part .

[Champ85 609]

The following thread on Shapeways has a lengthy discussion on the matter of copyright/trademark and 3D printing: http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=90886

Here is part of a post in that thread from Natalia, a Shapeways "Trust and Safety" team member at Shapeways:

* By using Shapeways you agree to upload only your own original content (models), content freely available under a Creative Commons license, or content you have the rights to.

* Shapeways has no way of knowing which of these categories your models fall under and we have no legal obligation to check. We trust you.

* Shapeways as a company is bound by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) but we are a "Safe Harbor" meaning we have a huge bay and anyone can park their boats in our bay. (What's know as creating "User Generated Content") Just like You-Tube, anyone can upload anything they want.

* Because we get to have this big bay, we also need to play by the rules and the rules say:
1. Copyright holders have the right to email us and say "hey, that's mine!" and we have to take it down. (They send us an official "DMCA Takedown Notice")
2. Our users also have the right to disagree. So if your model gets removed and you disagree for whatever reason, you have the right to send us a "Counter-DMCA" to say "put it back" and we will. Then we leave you and the copyright holder to come to whatever agreement you decide on which, in one case, did indeed get Paul a job at Marvel and in another Ryan a profit-sharing with success kids mom.


Shapeways Copyright Policy
While we want to enable people to 3D print whatever they can imagine, this does unfortunately occasionally includes things that already exist and may be covered by copyright. We ask that our community respects the rights of other designers and only upload their own original work or work that is freely available through a Creative Commons license. While we do what we can to ensure the content on Shapeways is appropriate, we cannot realistically review every model uploaded for a possible copyright infringement. We are also unable to determine whether the user has obtained a license for copyrighted content. As a service provider, our liability is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act under their Safe Harbor provision. (More details can be found here on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac t)
Shapeways is a safe harbor under the DMCA, and thus acts much like YouTube. In order to comply with the DMCA and protect intellectual-property-right owners, we follow a takedown process when we get a Takedown Notice.

How are you contributing to changing IP law and copyrights in the 3D printing landscape?
While we want to enable people to 3D print whatever they can imagine, this does unfortunately occasionally includes things that already exist and may be covered by copyright. If a copyright holder sends us a legal letter asking us to remove content that they have not licensed or approved for sale, we must (and do) respect their wishes. We let the affected designers know, and remove their models from sale on the site. In this way we are a lot like YouTube, and act as a Safe Harbor for user-generated content so people can upload whatever they like. We do expect that our community respects the rights of other designers and only upload their own original work or work that is freely available through a Creative Commons license.
Shapeways respects copyright claims and always complies quickly. We have checks and balances in place along our whole chain to make sure once we know we have infringing content, that it is not just on our site, but no longer in production too. That said, we would love to see a way to partner with copyright holders so fans can create unique products. Ultimately, we see 3D printing as a technology full of creativity and not about copyright infringement. With any new technology that's democratizing access to a tool, infringement is possible, but what we're enabling at Shapeways is a community in which original innovation triumphs.

Currently we fully respect the law and the rights of copyright holders. We are, however, increasingly seeing unique fan art and it suggests a vibrant market for personalized, unique products, something that 3D printing is perfect for. If making it easy to license and 3D print these products, copyright holders could feasibly make more money, better serve their market, and reduce potential piracy - because the things that fans would want to pirate would already be available for sale. It would be an enlightened move on the part of major copyright holders to work with designers rather than send legal takedown notices. But we're excited to see what the future holds!

We would love to see a future where IP laws and 3D printing can coexist and can work together, rather than the other way around, and we support the work of Michael Weinberg (@mweinbergPK) at the advocacy group Public Knowledge, who has done a lot of thinking about this. If you want to see a good example of how the future could look, I suggest reading these (Tom posted them too!)
http://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/whats-the-dea l-with-copyright-and-3d-printing
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/hbo-give-people-way-buy- your-3d-printed-stuff
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/turning-3d-printed-copyr ight-infringers-partn

[bromvw 744]

seems that , within reason , anything go's then . Your free to 'improve ' on any design .

[Champ85 609]

I also believe that modelling a couple of individual parts of an RC model are insignificant enough to the manufacturer that they wouldn't really care if you were making (and even selling) those parts.

However, if you started to create EVERY part for a particular model, say a Grasshopper, and offered all parts individually or as a complete "kit", then I think you are in violation since you've now made a copy of a complete work which competes with the original product.

It's a fine line between "fair use" and "IP theft by copying".

Heck, even my Futaba 3UCP transmitter battery cover is a copy of an original design. By definition it has to be in order to fit properly on the back of the transmitter unit itself. But since Futaba is no longer supporting the product and no spares are available, I believe I am within my right as an owner of the transmitter to create a replacement/replica battery cover to keep it operational. Think of it as a 3D plastic version of duct tape to keep the battery in place. I also do not see why I cannot capitalize on the fact that Futaba no longer supports the product by selling the battery cover. I do not see why Futaba would send me a cease and desist letter for it. I am not causing any harm or confusion about the Futaba brand or replacement part supply chain or sales. It's a dead product to them. I'm not trying to steal anything from Futaba. I love their products and want to keep using them. I also want to give the opportunity for others to keep their 3UCP transmitters in service by selling battery covers. Yes, I added a small profit value to the selling price to compensate for my time and money spent in modelling and printing tests. It's not like I'm selling any, anyway, given the rarity of the 3UCP in the world. I think it is no different from replacing bad capacitors in a TV power supply after the warranty expires. Companies sell TV repair packages for various brands of LCD TVs that have a history of power supplies going bad due to bad caps.

I suppose each case is different, but I would have no problems making 3D parts and selling them for various RC models currently in production or not. Just don't try to make a complete car. And yes, we could argue over how many parts could be made before it becomes a problem (50.1%?), but only time will tell for that stuff.

[TWINSET 1793]

I do not see why Futaba would send me a cease and desist letter for it.

I am not causing any harm or confusion about the Futaba brand or replacement part supply chain or sales.

It's a dead product to them.

I'm not trying to steal anything from Futaba.

I love their products and want to keep using them.

I also want to give the opportunity for others to keep their 3UCP transmitters in service by selling battery covers.

Yes, I added a small profit value to the selling price to compensate for my time and money spent in modelling and printing tests. It's not like I'm selling any, anyway, given the rarity of the 3UCP in the world.

Replace Futaba with Tamiya and you're close to the situation with repro decals - it's early days for 3D printing and copying but I daresay the dreaded day will happen when Shapeways starts pulling down product for copyright infringement.

Same as all those 'silent' youtube videos where the uploader hasn't sought permission to use the music!

The secret to riding the storm is to make the parts proveably better than the originals, whether it's from stronger or more flexible materials or by adding material to reinforce weak points.

100% copying is where it'll all fall apart.

It might not be RC products, it might be Games Workshop figures, or Shimano bike parts, but at some point there'll be issues for Shapeways.

I think it is no different from replacing bad capacitors in a TV power supply after the warranty expires.

Companies sell TV repair packages for various brands of LCD TVs that have a history of power supplies going bad due to bad caps.

The difference there is capacitors are made by lots of different companies, so knowing a 10uf 50v cap is what'll fix the TV is the gem, not obtaining the capacitor.

It's easy enough to idenify most electronics components, and there's circuit diagrams and repair docs for the rest.

Electronic component replacement and the copying plastic of parts aren't comparable sciences :-)

This is a good read (linked to further up in the Shapeways quote) https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/What%27s%20the%20Deal%20with%20Copyright_%20Final%20version2.pdf

[Champ85 609]

I agree with your points, Andy. My arguments could never hold up in court and my capacitor comparison falls short. I was trying to say "equal part for equal part", and what if I could 3D print a capacitor? I'm just replacing a broken thing in both cases.

I'll wait for Futaba to send me a letter. If they care, they will. If they don't, they won't. A simple search for "Futaba" on Shapeways will find it. I'll take it down if they ask.

[TWINSET 1793]

That PDF is worth a read - there's various ways around the issues if you can improve on the original design - Battery cooling slots in the cover or textured grip areas to prevent droppage etc.

[Champ85 609]

I read the PDF you linked. I am not claiming copyright on the battery cover I designed, although I guess that anything uploaded to Shapeways is protected automatically by copyright because they assume it is an original work. Well, the 3D model is my original design. I created it in Blender using measurements from an original cover. The resulting object after 3D printing is a copy of a copyrighted work. I mean, that was the whole point. I can't create a functional replacement battery cover without infringing on Futaba's copyright of the object. My design is an imperfect copy and different when compared to the original in many ways, at least when you look at the details. It is certainly similar in appearance and design (as required in order to satisfy the functional purpose of it), but it is not an exact copy. Does it infringe, then? How much "different" does it need to be in order to not be considered violating the copyright? Who decides that? I assume the courts do. Can I just call it a "hop-up" part and be done with it? It's a catch-22 that is really crappy because there is no legal way out of it. Futaba won't make and sell me battery covers but they own the copyright to it. I'm (and possibly others) left with a broken thing that I cannot legally fix in a pleasing way*. That sucks.

In my opinion, Futaba failed in their "duty" (though it is well within their rights as copyright holder) to supply replacement parts for their copyrighted product. They discontinued the manufacture of the product, denying me a way to replace a broken/missing part that is critical to its function. Side note: I do not believe Futaba ever offered the battery cover for sale as a spare/replacement part. There is no part # mentioned in the manual for it and I've never found it for sale anywhere.

* I could use duct tape to hold the battery in place. Duct tape is a common item and thus not possible for Futaba to prevent me from using it as a battery cover. But I wanted to make something that at least looked and functioned somewhat similar to the original item. I could have whittled it out of bass wood and painted it black, but I decided to make it out of plastic using a 3D printer. The functional part was critical to my purpose, but the overall look was simply an attempt to make it similar in appearance to the original. I guess that is the problem. I need to make it somehow distinct, thus not infringing on the original design. I have no idea if the existing model suffices.

Imagine a world where nobody can make and sell replacement parts (even uncommon and complicated copyrighted things, like battery covers) for things that are no longer in production. No fixing allowed. Gotta throw it in the trash. Or use duct tape.

If the distinction is making for yourself vs selling to others, I can understand that. Again, I'll wait for the letter from Futaba. Until then, buy away, all 2 other people in the world that own a 3UCP. (Seriously, nobody even cares)

OK, I'm done venting. Thanks for reading.

[TWINSET 1793]

Sorry, I didn't mean 'you' as in Champ85, I meant you as in 'one' - as in there's various ways around the issues if one can improve on the original design or if one could show an improvement over the original the part could be considered an upgrade instead of replacement.

As for how different; that's another huge minefield - ultimately how different can a battery cover be, unless you attach a cup holder to it

I wasn't implying you were in the wrong, just using your post as an example of how members innocently reproducing decals started and drawing parallels - I personally don't see reproducing decals as an act of evil, but we have to keep them off the site for the site's benefit

All of this is still in it's infancy - 10 years (6 even?) ago there was little chance of getting a decent '506' sticker printed up, now we're discussing how to manufacture our own parts that are so good they're useable instead of the originals!

[Champ85 609]

Oh, yes. I should have made it clear that I did understand you meant the broad sense, not me specifically in your points.

I keep bringing up my battery cover because it is something I can focus on specifically when making arguments.

Obviously each object being discussed would need to be individually evaluated to decide if copyright is being violated or not.

After reading the PDF and digesting, I am inclined to believe, at least for the battery cover, that it might not actually be copyrightable in the first place since it serves a utilitarian purpose (ie. to hold a battery in place so it doesn't drop on the ground). The artistic parts could be argued (as part of the overall look of the 3UCP transmitter itself since there is an overarching design/artistic feel to it in general), but functionally, most of the artistic aspects (if they can even be called such) of the battery cover itself are required to make it function and do its job, and thus not copyrightable. The ribs for the thumb to provide grip when removing, the word "OPEN", and the arrow serve as functional parts. You might argue about the font used for the word "OPEN" or the sizes or number of ribs or arrow, but really, that's nitpicking. IMO, of course.

Thanks for the discussion. Certainly is interesting, and was something I thought about for a few weeks before deciding to put up the cover for sale to others on Shapeways. I decided to chance it believing that if it helped one other person who was missing a cover, it would be worth it. So far it isn't, haha.