3

This came up in a comment discussion on a news story of someone selling prints of models that were licensed CC-BY-NC-ND.

Ignoring that the seller themselve seems pretty clueless and we can disregard their defence, the question comes up in the comments: is a 3d printed object a derivative work of it's design file and if so, in what jurisdictions?

Improve this question
4
  • Reading the full text of your news story is fun -- the defence used is that other people violates the license, so the license is not valid
    – Soren
    Feb 23, 2016 at 18:00
  • @Soren "the defense[sic] used is that other people violates the license, so the license is not valid" I don't think it's quite that simple, it's probably along the lines of "You are hosting your design on a site that makes money and is obviously commercial so it doesn't make sense that you legitimately believe it is a non-commercial license"
    – Sam
    Feb 23, 2016 at 22:51
  • @Sam besides your point but "defense" is the American spelling of "defence", no need to add "[sic]".
    – kasbah
    Feb 24, 2016 at 15:26
  • @kasbah Huh, you learn something new every day. I think you mean "defence" is the Brittish spelling of "defense" :P
    – Sam
    Feb 24, 2016 at 17:42

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

Yes, the print is a derivative work in exactly the same way that a building is derivative work of the architectural and engineering plans.

Improve this answer
0

Yes, the print is a derivative work. This is because it wouldn't be able to fundamentally exist without the file.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .