Return to Answer

TL;DR: If the design in question is a piece of artwork, then it's almost always yes. But if the object is only designed for practical use, e.g. in machines, usually no.

In particular, if the physical object is designed for utilitarian purposes, in other words, for practical use (e.g. a machine or its component), and that the object contains absolutely no visible artistic work, it's often not copyrightable. This remains true regardless of its license status, proprietary or copylefted. There are exceptions that require a case-by-case analysis, but for the most part, these objects are not covered by copyright laws, especially in the US. Other parts of the world have similar laws.

The practical implication is that, since copyright laws are not intended to stop someone else from making the same object, in open-source hardware design, licensing terms are much more weaker than its use in software.

TL;DR: If the design in question is a piece of artistic work, then it's almost always yes (but "artwork" is not to be confused with technical patterns for printing, which is also technically called "artwork"). But if the object is only designed for practical use, e.g. in machines, usually no.

In particular, if the physical object is designed for utilitarian purposes, in other words, for practical use (e.g. a machine or its component), and that the object contains absolutely no visible artistic work, it's often not copyrightable. This remains true regardless of its license status, proprietary or copylefted. There are exceptions that require a case-by-case analysis (integrated circuit design is a notable example) but for the most part, these objects are not covered by copyright laws, especially in the US. Other parts of the world have similar laws.

The practical implication is that, since copyright laws are not intended to stop someone else from making the same object, in open-source hardware design, licensing terms are much weaker than its use in software.

Not always. In particular, if the physical object is designed for utilitarian purposes, in other words, for practical use (e.g. a machine or its component), and that the object contains absolutely no visible artistic work, it's often not copyrightable. This remains true regardless of its license status, proprietary or copylefted. There are exceptions that require a case-by-case analysis, but for the most part, these objects are not covered by copyright laws, especially in the US. Other parts of the world have similar laws.

Implication in Open-Source Hardware Design

Case Study - Integrated Circuit Design

The wide range of uses for semiconductors in both new products and redesigned existing products created a huge market for this new type of electronic components. United States manufacturers feared a concerted effort by foreign semiconductor firms, especially the Japanese, to take over the U.S. market. Thus, U.S. manufacturers began to seek protection for their chips in 1979,51 As a first step, industry members tried to obtain protection by fitting their chips into existing categories of intellectual property.

 

Legislative investigators then turned to the Copyright Act, because its subject matter coverage seemed expansive enough to cover chips. Among the subject matter covered by this statute were pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, which appeared to include drawings made of a chip's layout. Copyright law also offered a way around difficulties posed by changes in technology, because the Copyright Act explicitly addressed derivative works. This avenue failed, however, because the Copyright Act as applied has distinguished between technical drawings and the objects produced using them. Although a technical drawing itself can be protected, the Copyright Act does not protect the objects made using the drawing. Thus the Act did not address the semiconductor manufacturer's main concern: prohibiting others from copying its circuit layout and selling the results. A second difficulty in using the Copyright Act to cover chips was the "useful article doctrine."65 Under this doctrine, the Copyright Act does not give protection to utilitarian objects unless their useful functions can be separated physically or conceptually from their aesthetic aspects. For example, a belt buckle that appears as a free-form metal sculpture is conceptually separable from its useful function. A mask work, however, functions only as part of the manufacturing process and has no real aesthetic aspects, making it a purely useful article. The Copyright Office has consistently denied protection to useful articles, and has refused to accept chips as copies of masks under the Copyright Act.

After determining that existing intellectual property statutes could not appropriately be applied to mask works, Congress decided that the correct answer to the problem lay in a new sui generis form of protection. Although the new act was modeled after the Copyright Act, it created a new form of industrial intellectual property.

TL;DR: If the design in question is a piece of artwork, then it's almost always yes. But if the object is only designed for practical use, e.g. in machines, usually no.

In particular, if the physical object is designed for utilitarian purposes, in other words, for practical use (e.g. a machine or its component), and that the object contains absolutely no visible artistic work, it's often not copyrightable. This remains true regardless of its license status, proprietary or copylefted. There are exceptions that require a case-by-case analysis, but for the most part, these objects are not covered by copyright laws, especially in the US. Other parts of the world have similar laws.

What does the FSF say

This is an answer for GPL, but it applies equally to LGPL and proprietary designs.

Q: Can I use the GPL to license hardware? (#GPLHardware)

Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL.

In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way. [7]

What do I say

Useful Art Doctrine

Implication in Open-Source Hardware Design

Case Study - Integrated Circuit Design

The wide range of uses for semiconductors in both new products and redesigned existing products created a huge market for this new type of electronic components. United States manufacturers feared a concerted effort by foreign semiconductor firms, especially the Japanese, to take over the U.S. market. Thus, U.S. manufacturers began to seek protection for their chips in 1979,51 As a first step, industry members tried to obtain protection by fitting their chips into existing categories of intellectual property.

Legislative investigators then turned to the Copyright Act, because its subject matter coverage seemed expansive enough to cover chips. Among the subject matter covered by this statute were pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, which appeared to include drawings made of a chip's layout. Copyright law also offered a way around difficulties posed by changes in technology, because the Copyright Act explicitly addressed derivative works. This avenue failed, however, because the Copyright Act as applied has distinguished between technical drawings and the objects produced using them. Although a technical drawing itself can be protected, the Copyright Act does not protect the objects made using the drawing. Thus the Act did not address the semiconductor manufacturer's main concern: prohibiting others from copying its circuit layout and selling the results. A second difficulty in using the Copyright Act to cover chips was the "useful article doctrine."65 Under this doctrine, the Copyright Act does not give protection to utilitarian objects unless their useful functions can be separated physically or conceptually from their aesthetic aspects. For example, a belt buckle that appears as a free-form metal sculpture is conceptually separable from its useful function. A mask work, however, functions only as part of the manufacturing process and has no real aesthetic aspects, making it a purely useful article. The Copyright Office has consistently denied protection to useful articles, and has refused to accept chips as copies of masks under the Copyright Act.

After determining that existing intellectual property statutes could not appropriately be applied to mask works, Congress decided that the correct answer to the problem lay in a new sui generis form of protection. Although the new act was modeled after the Copyright Act, it created a new form of industrial intellectual property.

[7] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLHardware

It's also worth noting that if the object does contain artistic work (such as industrial design or decoration), it must be actually designed as artwork to begin with. You cannot game the Useful Articles doctrine by hiding a piece of invisible copyrighted artwork inside the object. In this case, your copyright claim would be deemed as "concealed in use" and be rejected [3]:

One good example of the application of the "primarily functional" test by the Federal Circuit is found in its recent decision, Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics. Inc. In that case, the court denied a request for a preliminary injunction by the "inventor" of a plastic container for an electric dimmer switch, finding that the container followed precisely the contours of the switch that it enclosed, and was, therefore, "primarily functional" rather than "primarily ornamental."

Hardware in general is not copyrightable (excluding firmware and its exterior decorative arts or industrial designs) [5]. If the hardware contains original innovations, it may be patented. If it's just an implementation of a preexisting design, it cannot be patented, and there's almost nothing to stop someone else from replicating it.

The wide range of uses for semiconductors in both new products and redesigned existing products created a huge market for this new type of electronic components. United States manufacturers feared a concerted effort by foreign semiconductor firms, especially the Japanese, to take over the U.S. market. Thus, U.S. manufacturers began to seek protection for their chips in 1979,51 As a first step, industry members tried to obtain protection by fitting their chips into existing categories of intellectual property.

Several peculiarities in the semiconductor industry precluded an easy solution through then-existing patent or copyright law. Existing patent law was inadequate to protect semiconductor chips because of the Patent Act's subject matter coverage and the industry's dynamics. The chips themselves and their layouts seldom reached high enough levels of novelty and non-obviousness, two requirements for patent protection under the Act. The volatility of end-user markets for semiconductors also made patents inappropriate. Because technology changes rapidly, the typical two- to three-year waiting period made patent protection meaningless. By the time a semiconductor device was patented, the technology could have developed into a new, unprotected form.

  This avenue failed, however, because the Copyright Act as applied has distinguished between technical drawings and the objects produced using them. Although a technical drawing itself can be protected, the Copyright Act does not protect the objects made using the drawing. Thus the Act did not address the semiconductor manufacturer's main concern: prohibiting others from copying its circuit layout and selling the results.

A second difficulty in using the Copyright Act to cover chips was the "useful article doctrine." Under this doctrine, the Copyright Act does not give protection to utilitarian objects unless their useful functions can be separated physically or conceptually from their aesthetic aspects. For example, a belt buckle that appears as a free-form metal sculpture is conceptually separable from its useful function. A mask work, however, functions only as part of the manufacturing process and has no real aesthetic aspects, making it a purely useful article. The Copyright Office has consistently denied protection to useful articles, and has refused to accept chips as copies of masks under the Copyright Act. After determining that existing intellectual property statutes could not appropriately be applied to mask works, Congress decided that the correct answer to the problem lay in a new sui generis form of protection. Although the new act was modeled after the Copyright Act, it created a new form of industrial intellectual property.

Furthermore, it's also worth noting that in addition to the utility patent that we're familiar with, one may apply a special "design patent" to an object's decorative features. However, you cannot game the Useful Articles doctrine by hiding a piece of invisible artwork inside the object, or trying to patent functional aspects the object.

In that case, the court denied a request for a preliminary injunction by the "inventor" of a plastic container for an electric dimmer switch, finding that the container followed precisely the contours of the switch that it enclosed, and was, therefore, "primarily functional" rather than "primarily ornamental." [...] Power Controls, 806 F.2d at 240. Design patents sometimes issue and are then invalidated (for want of ornamentality) on articles that are concealed in use. A vivid example is a septic tank. See C & M Fiberglass Septic Tanks, Inc. v. T & N Fiberglass Mfg. Co., 214 U.S.P.Q. (DNA) 159 (D. S.C. 1981). In such cases the patentee is probably trying to capture some functional attribute. [3]

In addition to utility patents, the Patent Act "provides limited monopolies on product designs that are new, original, and ornamental. Congress created the design patent to promote products possessing "grace and pleasing appearance." The integrated circuit design, however, is concealed during its use and therefore has no appearance,pleasing or otherwise.'More significantly, chips failed to meet design patent standards because their design is dictated solely by function and not by cosmetic values." Thus, design patents were also inappropriate for semiconductor [6]

Hardware in general is not copyrightable [5] (excluding firmware and its exterior decorative arts or industrial designs). 

If the hardware contains original innovations, a utility patent may be applied. If it contains decorative arts or industrial designs, it's copyrighted, and one can also apply a design patent. But if it's just an implementation of a preexisting design, and without artistic decorative features, it cannot be copyrighted nor patented, and there's almost nothing to stop someone else from replicating it.

The wide range of uses for semiconductors in both new products and redesigned existing products created a huge market for this new type of electronic components. United States manufacturers feared a concerted effort by foreign semiconductor firms, especially the Japanese, to take over the U.S. market. Thus, U.S. manufacturers began to seek protection for their chips in 1979,51 As a first step, industry members tried to obtain protection by fitting their chips into existing categories of intellectual property.

 

Legislative investigators then turned to the Copyright Act, because its subject matter coverage seemed expansive enough to cover chips. Among the subject matter covered by this statute were pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, which appeared to include drawings made of a chip's layout. Copyright law also offered a way around difficulties posed by changes in technology, because the Copyright Act explicitly addressed derivative works. This avenue failed, however, because the Copyright Act as applied has distinguished between technical drawings and the objects produced using them. Although a technical drawing itself can be protected, the Copyright Act does not protect the objects made using the drawing. Thus the Act did not address the semiconductor manufacturer's main concern: prohibiting others from copying its circuit layout and selling the results. A second difficulty in using the Copyright Act to cover chips was the "useful article doctrine."65 Under this doctrine, the Copyright Act does not give protection to utilitarian objects unless their useful functions can be separated physically or conceptually from their aesthetic aspects. For example, a belt buckle that appears as a free-form metal sculpture is conceptually separable from its useful function. A mask work, however, functions only as part of the manufacturing process and has no real aesthetic aspects, making it a purely useful article. The Copyright Office has consistently denied protection to useful articles, and has refused to accept chips as copies of masks under the Copyright Act.

After determining that existing intellectual property statutes could not appropriately be applied to mask works, Congress decided that the correct answer to the problem lay in a new sui generis form of protection. Although the new act was modeled after the Copyright Act, it created a new form of industrial intellectual property.

[6] Semiconductor Chip Protection: Changing Roles for Copyright and Competition, James Chesser, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Mar., 1985), pp. 249-295, doi: 10.2307/1073018