In the end I decided to write this post to highlight the surprising double standards of ALL the people who design these sites.
Everyone without exception says that it bothers them that their models published on Makerworld are stolen to put them up for sale on their pages or platforms.
To some extent I can agree with them. In the end it is a job. but I wonder, are all those people who post designs for “FREE” on Makerworld and get points then file taxes on their gift cards?
It is clear that the design probably has a license that does not allow its commercial use, but has anyone stopped to think that the designer is actually making commercial use of it? It is true that it is his design and he can do it but he must pay taxes on the benefits obtained
and honestly, I don’t believe that any of them declare that they have certain gift cards for downloads of their models. Although you may think that it is not necessary, at the end of the day it is remuneration in kind and as such it has to be taxed.
So to begin with, the designer who posts his design, I repeat for free, and when he exchanges points obtained thanks to his design, for a gift card and does not declare it, we can say that he is the first to start stealing for not paying the corresponding taxes with it.
It is more than likely that those who have these designs on their websites and online stores pay the corresponding taxes for each sale of those items.
On the other hand, all non-commercial licenses are very explicit “cannot be sold” but they say nothing about advertising.
Having an item for sale is not the same as selling, so as long as that item is not sold, no type of violation has occurred.
In the same way that accumulating points without exchanging them for a gift card that provides a monetary discount cannot be considered remuneration in kind, it is when the exchange occurs that the obligation is generated.
The law in this sense is clear and categorical.
Anyone who creates an original three-dimensional computer design has an exclusive right to it. If someone downloads a file containing this design from the Internet without authorization and prints it with a 3D printer, they will be infringing the exclusive right of the author. In reality, there are two violations of rights: the first is by downloading the file illegally, since someone will have made it available without permission; and a second when printing it, since a digital file would be transformed into a physical object, also without permission. The making available and the transformation of a work can only be carried out by the owner or with his consent.
However, the moment someone puts a file on the makerworld platform, they are directly authorizing its download and printing, otherwise they would not place it on a page whose main function is to be a repository of 3D models.
The copyright protection that Makerworld claims to offer to its creators of exclusive models is not such. makerworld does NOT protect the creators, it protects itself.
When the creator designates a model as exclusive, what he does is grant Makerworld exclusivity for said model, and Makerworld in return incentivizes him (commercial transaction) with points redeemable for money and/or gift cards.
Thanks to this exclusivity, Makerworld guarantees a flow of visits to its page to be able to obtain said model, which is what really interests it.
I say all this for information since I have had to defend a small company for a claim and the court’s response has been blunt. Indeed, my defense defended it and put the model up for sale in its online store. However, as could be verified with the sales verification, the model was never sold, therefore it did not really violate the premise of “it will not be sold.” But he did not comply with the fact that the image he used for the advertisement was the plaintiff’s own. As an addition, the other part presented the data flow and point transactions.
As a result, the court ruled that my client had to pay a fine, ridiculously not up to $100, for the improper use of the image in question and remove it from her page (the image not the product) with the warning that the product would be sold. product would be an effective violation of the license. but the plaintiff had to face the large fine imposed for not having declared the returns in kind of said model and a tax investigation was initiated for the rest of the models, as far as I know the amount, between what was claimed for taxes and the Fines with late payment interest amount to several thousand $.
With this I just want to warn that many times what is thought to be and what really is, are very different things.
35 posts - 10 participants