[cc-community] Extending CC into physical space
fred.benenson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 24 12:45:18 EST 2009
You'll want to check out Thingiverse as a repository for physical objects
supporting CC / GPL / BSD / PD :
~ ~ ~
thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog
work / http://creativecommons.org
sights / http://flickr.com/fcb
sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis
status / http://twitter.com/mecredis
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> > I'm trying to work out how to use a CC licence outside of the pure
> > "information" space.
> > I produce model kits, and over time various kits cease to sell well
> > enough to be worth producing as a business but demand never quite hits
> > zero. So it's a classic long tail.
> > My first thought was to release the artwork for some of the brass kits
> > under a CC licence so that people can produce their own copies if they
> > really really want or can find a group of people together to produce a
> > set. That bit is fairly easy.
> > Where it all goes pear shaped is that people will want to make
> > modifications - to improve it, to produce with different matters, or
> > different sizes etc.
> Not sure I see the issue -- if people distribute the modified artwork,
> they'd need to do so under the terms of the CC license you've offered,
> unless they've made other arrangements or the use isn't restricted by
> > The CC attribution, sharealike license extends to the artwork but doesn't
> > cover the results. Thus someone could improve the kit and providing they
> > don't share the artwork itself take their improvements effectively out of
> > the CC space.
> Ok, I see the possible issue. If the model produced by your kits is
> not restricted by copyright (and thus subject to the license offered),
> you want to restrict it by some other means. I'm not sure this is
> healthy :-) but I'd start by looking at whether the results are
> considered adaptations of your artwork, and thus subject to copyright
> and copyright licenses. Given the expansion of the scope of copyright,
> it would surprise me if there were not some handles to grasp on here.
> However, IANAL...
> > I can clearly hack something out using the CC+ setup, but its a hack.
> Actually it isn't clear -- you can't add restrictions to a CC license
> with CC+, only offer alternative arrangements.
> > Currently this is a fairly obscure area but with the rise in 3D printing
> > the time before CC needs to have this debate about things like printing
> > CC furniture or kitchen utensils is not long (at least in legal terms) so
> > I was a bit suprised that it doesn't seem to be being addressed or even
> > on anyones radar.
> > Is there a better way to hack CC to do this or does the world need a GNU
> > Physical Object Licence or similar ?
> Well, it is a little bit on my radar. My (strictly non-legal) opinion
> is that if a physical object is covered by copyright, CC licenses are
> probably flexible enough to pre-clear some of copyright's
> restrictions, under the usual terms. They're designed to work for any
> medium covered by copyright. And if an object is not covered by
> copyright, we'd want to be extremely careful about abetting an
> expansion in the scope of copyright and neighbors.
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-community