Last winter, Thomas Valenty bought a MakerBot — an inexpensive 3-D printer that lets you quickly create plastic objects. His brother had some Imperial Guards from the tabletop game Warhammer, so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank.

He tweaked the designs for a week until he was happy. “I put a lot of work into them,” he says. Then he posted the files for free downloading on Thingiverse, a site that lets you share instructions for printing 3-D objects. Soon other fans were outputting their own copies.

Until the lawyers showed up.

Games Workshop, the UK-based firm that makes Warhammer, noticed Valenty’s work and sent Thingiverse a takedown notice, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Thingiverse removed the files, and Valenty suddenly became an unwilling combatant in the next digital war: the fight over copying physical objects.

“The DMCA knocked the wind out of me,” he wrote in an e-mail to me. “I haven’t uploaded many of my printable models since it happened.”

When I first heard about 3-D printers, I figured the trend wouldn’t go mainstream for decades, if ever. Oops. Companies now offer 3-D printers for just over $1,000, and prices are dropping rapidly.

Observers predict that in a few years we’ll see printers that integrate scanning capability — so your kid can toss in a Warhammer figurine, hit Copy, and get a new one. The machine will become a photocopier of stuff.

This has all the makings of an epic and surreal legal battle. You thought Hollywood and record labels were powerful lobbyists, crushing Napster and suing file-sharers? Wait until you see what the manufacturing industry can do. The American Chamber of Commerce is the single largest lobbyist on Capitol Hill, spending $60 million a year.

“Printing in 3-D is a disruptive technology that raises a lot of intellectual property issues,” says Michael Weinberg, a senior staff attorney with Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for consumers’ digital rights.

But there’s one big difference in this clash: The legal situation might actually favor the amateurs.

That’s because, as Weinberg points out, disputes over copies of physical objects are often fought using patent law, which is far less strict than copyright. For example, patents last only 20 years, which means many cool everyday objects (Lego bricks!) are long out of patent. What’s more, patent law generally governs only a complete assembled product, so creating replacement parts — a thriving pastime among hobbyists — is probably legal.

What 3-D printing hobbyists mostly have to watch out for, Weinberg argues, is copying artistic patterns or designs on an object. That violates copyright. But if you stick to reproducing or modeling the basic physical nature of something — particularly if you’re rejiggering a physical concept into a new form — you’re probably safe. (Indeed, Weinberg isn’t even sure Valenty infringed on Warhammer’s copyrighted designs, because Games Workshop is accusing him of creating figurines in the style of the game, and you can’t copyright style.)

So really, the longer-term danger here is that manufacturers will decide the laws aren’t powerful enough. Once kids start merrily copying toys, manufacturers will push to hobble 3-D printing with laws similar to the Stop Online Piracy Act. “You’ll have people going to Washington and saying we need new rights,” Weinberg frets. Imagine laws that keep 3-D printers from outputting anything but objects “authorized” by megacorporations — DRM for the physical world. To stave this off, Weinberg is trying to educate legislators now.

I hope he’s successful. After all, 3-D printers aren’t just about copying. They’re a powerful new tool for experimenting with the design of the physical world, for thinking, for generating new culture, for stretching our imaginations.

That’s because, as Weinberg points out, disputes over copies of physical objects are often fought using patent law, which is far less strict than copyright. For example, patents last only 20 years, which means many cool everyday objects (Lego bricks!) are long out of patent. What’s more, patent law generally governs only a complete assembled product, so creating replacement parts — a thriving pastime among hobbyists — is probably legal.

(Indeed, Weinberg isn’t even sure Valenty infringed on Warhammer’s copyrighted designs, because Games Workshop is accusing him of creating figurines in the style of the game, and you can’t copyright style.)

azazel the cat wrote:GW can choke on their vapid claims to copyright.

Aerethan wrote:I found this bit interesting:

That’s because, as Weinberg points out, disputes over copies of physical objects are often fought using patent law, which is far less strict than copyright. For example, patents last only 20 years, which means many cool everyday objects (Lego bricks!) are long out of patent. What’s more, patent law generally governs only a complete assembled product, so creating replacement parts — a thriving pastime among hobbyists — is probably legal.

So, provided you don't copy ARTISTIC aspects or entire models, recreating PARTS is ok?

When did the patent for 28mm Space Marines expire?

So I'm guessing now the argument will have to be made on what constitutes art in a model. Also, I call BS on GW since they poor guy designed his OWN originals. Soon I'm sure GW will sue me for designing my own bases and producing them, since I'm sure GW has a copyright on 20mm square bases.

Aerethan wrote:True enough about the cost. I think the Staples cost of printing and binding any of my codex pdf's runs about $50 versus buying a legit copy for $33.

I think a 3d printer would be useful for small reprints for things like bolters or what not, as they wouldn't cost much to do.

GW does have a tendency to claim infringement on almost anything that people might use in their games.

Aerethan wrote:True enough about the cost. I think the Staples cost of printing and binding any of my codex pdf's runs about $50 versus buying a legit copy for $33.

biccat wrote:I suspect IP creators will end up losing to the pirates.

Douglaspocock wrote:Marcel Duchamp, a famous abract artist, made a well selling painting called, L.H.O.O.Q. It was an exact copy of the Mona Lisa with an added mustache.

http://www.marcelduchamp.net/L.H.O.O.Q.php

Is this violating intellectual property? It is simply a copy that is slightly different, and in fact, there is a whole movement of art called the "Ready Made" movement.

adamsouza wrote:

Quick, someone make some space marines with mustaches on the outside of the helmets !!

Aerethan wrote:True enough about the cost. I think the Staples cost of printing and binding any of my codex pdf's runs about $50 versus buying a legit copy for $33.

I think a 3d printer would be useful for small reprints for things like bolters or what not, as they wouldn't cost much to do.

GW does have a tendency to claim infringement on almost anything that people might use in their games.

Aerethan wrote:Combi-Meltas are $5 a piece. High enough for me to spend the $30 on rubber and resin to cast my own when you need 10 of them.

Those of course are an exception and not the rule.

Douglaspocock wrote:Marcel Duchamp, a famous abract artist, made a well selling painting called, L.H.O.O.Q. It was an exact copy of the Mona Lisa with an added mustache.

I don't see how this is any different.

Douglaspocock wrote:Is [L.H.O.O.Q.] violating intellectual property? It is simply a copy that is slightly different, and in fact, there is a whole movement of art called the "Ready Made" movement.

Douglaspocock wrote:No artist have been ever successfully sued over the art pieces. Precedent shows that there is no legal ramifications for taking someone else's artistic ideas and taking it as their own.

Cariou published a book of photographs which were taken during his time in Jamaica. The book, titled Yes, Rasta and released by PowerHouse Books ("Yes, Rasta"), contained both portraits of Rastafarian individuals (and others) in Jamaica and landscape photos taken by Cariou in Jamaica.
...
[Defendant Richard Prince showed] a collage entitled Canal Zone (2007), which consisted of 35 photographs torn from Yes, Rasta and attached to a wooden backer board. Prince painted over some portions of the 35 photographs, and used only portions of some of the photos, while others were used in their entirety or nearly so.
...
Having conducted a case-specific analysis of the four factors laid out in 17 U.S.C. § 107 in light of the purposes of copyright, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to the defense of fair use.
...
That Defendants shall within ten days of the date of this Order deliver up for impounding, destruction, or other disposition, as Plaintiff determines, all infringing copies of the Photographs

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:I suspect IP creators will end up losing to the pirates.

I think my jaw just hit the floor in a cartoonish fashion. I never thought I'd hear that from you.

What 3-D printing hobbyists mostly have to watch out for, Weinberg argues, is copying artistic patterns or designs on an object. That violates copyright. But if you stick to reproducing or modeling the basic physical nature of something — particularly if you’re rejiggering a physical concept into a new form — you’re probably safe. (Indeed, Weinberg isn’t even sure Valenty infringed on Warhammer’s copyrighted designs, because Games Workshop is accusing him of creating figurines in the style of the game, and you can’t copyright style.)

warboss wrote:Does DP9 use techniques like this to rapid prototype their minis? The NuCoal stuff has a CAD/CAM feel to the design moreso than the older Northern/Southern/Middle-Paxton stuff. Not as much as say CAV by Reaper but a noticeable bit IMHO. Does MiniManiac still design the minis like back in the original blitz days?