3

Several 3D models can be found on printables.com that are free for Commercial Use. Some examples are:

  1. Printable Black Pearl published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  2. Pot Planter published under the GNU General Public License v2.0
  3. Dice tower with meme published under the GNU General Public License v3.0
  4. Fortnite Chest min rip published under the 2-Clause BSD License

All these have one thing in common - "Sharing without ATTRIBUTION" is not allowed.

Now, I will be selling the 3D printed objects. Do I need to abide by the ATTRIBUTION part? Or the attribution is necessary only when I'm sharing the STL/source files?

Note: I want to share/mention the original author's name in my products. That is the least I can do for their awesome designs. My question is just to clarify if am I legally bound to mention the attribution and will there be any consequences if I "miss" the attribution in any one of the packaging.

Improve this question
5
  • 4
    Does this answer your question? Do physical assets created directly from GPLed, copyleft digital designs (not programs or libraries) acquire the same license?
    – Martin_in_AUT
    Commented Apr 22 at 7:40
  • "published under Creative Commons 4.0 International License" There is no such license. According to the link you mean CC-BY, that is Creative Commons Attribution. The other licenses that you list can also be listed in more detail, "GNU GPL" rather than only "GPL" and for the BSD license include whether it is the new/3-clause or simplified/2-clause BSD style license.
    – ecm
    Commented Apr 22 at 15:58
  • @Martin_in_AUT No. That question talks about using GPL software whereas I'm talking about GPL design / src.
    – PC.
    Commented Apr 23 at 1:45
  • 2
    @PC. I don't see a material differences. Both times we have physical objects based on code under Open Source Licenses.
    – Martin_in_AUT
    Commented Apr 23 at 16:00
  • @Martin_in_AUT The two questions are actually different, but for a different reason: The other question is asking whether GPL-licensing the source code also makes hardware made out of it is also GPL-licensed. This question asks a generic question on attribution requirement.
    – xuhdev
    Commented May 6 at 2:08

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

This is not a legal advice for your specific circumstances. Here, in hope of spurring further discussions, here, I discuss the general legal ramifications of creating tangible objects from source files that are licensed under some popular open source licenses that require attributions under US law.

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/14092/4212 already discusses the uncopyrightability of purely utilitarian tangible objects, which I will not repeat. The discussion below assumes that the tangible objects themselves are completely uncopyrightable.

Let's check out what the licenses say about attribution.

The 2-Clause BSD License

The 2-Clause BSD License (BSD-2-Clause) says:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Reading the paragraph as a whole, creating a tangible object from BSD-2-Clause-licensed source code seems to fall in the "use" verb. I won't interpret the phrase "binary form" to include a tangible object in this case. All conditions are duties imposed upon the occurring of redistribution. Therefore, I don't think attribution is required.

The GNU General Public License v2.0 and v3.0

GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2) says:

...The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law...

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change....

Since we have assumed that the tangible objects are not copyrightable, they can't be governed under copyright law. Hence, the licensee does not need to meet requirement "a)".

The GPL v3 contains similar provisions.

CC BY 4.0

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY-4.0) says:

If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

... b. a copyright notice; ...

This would depend on whether the tangible objects are modified form of the Licensed Material. This would depend on the interpretation, but I think the answer is more likely yes than no.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.