![sell 3d print files sell 3d print files](https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/3d-print.jpg)
![sell 3d print files sell 3d print files](https://www.learnrobotics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Thingiverse-Alternatives-Cover.jpg)
#Sell 3d print files license
You sell lots of your creatures, and even license it to other companies. You beg.Ī contract with Nintendo may be priceless. Why would the person avoid paying royalties to Nintendo or whoever.? It might sell in the millions. Nobody wastes their time and money on bad ones. When you see something similar to a well known product, you can bet they are paying royalties.Ī judge would say "Who are you trying to fool? Pay the man." Some parts of your 'new" design might be unique to you, but the majority of it is copyrighted, and you'd need permission to use those parts of the design. As others have said, if the designs are actually owned by Disney or someone similar they will have the money and the influence to get the items pulled both from Etsy and Thingiverse.
![sell 3d print files sell 3d print files](https://images.cults3d.com/uFH7-uTEn8cLB-EkuZvQU03gfNc=/https://files.cults3d.com/uploaders/16635508/illustration-file/62801ea8-6b00-45be-9f58-ae3b897ec0e5/1.jpg)
I expect it's a lot easier to get original work pulled as it is both distinctive and the designer can show ownership of the design and the files. The market place provider (Etsy, in this case) should have a policy in place but, again, unless the "owner" of the design can show an infringement has taken place they are under no obligation to remove the item(s). This is where there is a real grey area, is it actually possible/legal to try and license a file containing a design that is itself being used against the license of that design ? The second problem is that most of the items on the page you linked are from designs owned and copyrighted by someone else so the "designer" on Thingiverse is hardly in a position to start legal proceedings unless they can prove they are legally using the design themselves.
#Sell 3d print files code
If Microsoft, for example, borrow some of your source code and ship it out to millions of people against your license than it's worth pursuing if you can afford the enormous up front costs but trying to pursue someone who prints out a few dozen low cost items and then may add value to them (which is not covered by the license) is probably going to cost you more than you can claim back. Even if a designer did go down that route any compensation would only be for the commercial gain. There are two issues in reality though, the first is that the cost of pursuing a claim would be prohibitive, this makes the license very difficult to enforce unless it's being broken on a very large scale. The license doesn't cover the printed item IMV and in that respect the seller is correct, however, as his intention is to sell the printed item he is "using" the files for commercial purposes which does violate the license. The license doesn't only cover sharing of the files, it covers their use, which is the key in this case and why the seller would be wrong to suggest otherwise. If you wanted to avoid confusion perhaps you could have supplied links to the items in question.įor anything uploaded under NCL, although the object printed is not covered as such he would be "using" the files (that ARE covered) for commercial use so that would be against the license agreement for those files. As I said, I just clicked on the link and chose a few items at random.