Comment by dec0dedab0de | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dec0dedab0de | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

Not what he asked.

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

> 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

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.

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

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.

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.

Ianal, usual disclaimers, etc.

The design files don't qualify for copyright protections, they describe the design which (maybe) qualifies for copyright protections.[0]

The artistic design of a specific keyboard can certainly be copyrighted, but not the functional nature of it.

[0]The exact wording might be protected, but not the factual information contained. Sports scores, or say measurements of a keyboard, are not copyrightable items as they are just facts, though their presentation might be.

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?

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com