5 ms·

I get depressed whenever I read about these people who get bitten by the DMCA and then don't do the 5 minutes of internet research needed to figure out how to f

I get depressed whenever I read about these people who get bitten by the DMCA and then don't do the 5 minutes of internet research needed to figure out how to fight it. It sounds to me like this guy had a clear case of DMCA abuse. If he designed the models himself, from scratch, then the best claim Games Workshop could have against him would be trademark infringement, and that's not what the DMCA is for. Therefore, all he has to do is send Thingiverse a counter-notification and, unless Games Workshop files a lawsuit (which they almost certainly won't), Thingiverse will restore the content in 14 days (they are required to do this in order to receive safe harbor protection under the DMCA). Chilling Effects even has a page for automatically generating these counter-notifications, so there's really no excuse for not protecting yourself from abuse: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf

Anderkent 14y ago
Except you're a single person and they're this scary huge corporation. If they do sue, what are you going to do? Not many are willing to take that risk.
- mistercow 14y ago
  But see, that's the same boat we were in before we had the DMCA. It's a problem that there's a two-week blackout on your stuff if someone files a takedown notice, but it does protect you from being sued right off the bat. In other words, if he's unwilling to risk filing the counter-notice, then without the DMCA, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been willing to risk uploading the models at all. But to answer your rhetorical question, if they do sue, you contact groups like the EFF and ask for help. (Better yet, contact them before filing the counter-notification). They would likely be happy to work to establish a good precedent in a novel situation like this.
grabeh 14y ago
I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken place. Also, contrast this story with the outcry over EA's alleged copying of GW models albeit digitally. http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc_mmo_is_a_baneblade_from_40k/ http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc...
- mistercow 14y ago
  Oh I definitely agree. I am assuming that he has a legitimate complaint for the sake of argument, because if he doesn't, then this is just the DMCA doing exactly what it's supposed to.
  - grabeh 14y ago
    I suppose it's one of those areas where surely there is a fantastic opportunity for someone like GW to get on board with 3-D printing rather than looking to suppress usage. It's interesting because the whole point of the models is that they have specific attributes and fits in with the codexes. Surely if someone is making a separate design, it would be beneficial in terms of fostering increased support and take-up of the GW models. Although of course it all depends on the similarities between the two!
    - Qworg 14y ago
      Actually, the whole point of the models is that GW sells them. The prices for GW products has steadily increased over the years, even though their material costs have not. 3D printing totally upends their business model.
      - grabeh 14y ago
        Yes, traditionally they sell them but I think a licensing of the designs for usage in 3D printers could be a great driver of increased uptake. Not entirely sure what you're getting at with static material costs? Are you taking into account inflation and saying retail costs have increased at a greater rate? In any event, home printing would reduce their own costs and hopefully foster greater uptake.
- nl 14y ago
  I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken place. You probably should read the article. Even if there were similarities it wouldn't matter. Physical objects can be protected by (normal) patents, which protect physical functionality or design patents[1]. Even if GW did have a design patent (which is fairly rare) then it would only protect against identical copies. The standard of proof for design patent violation is that the new object could be mistaken as the original (not "has some similar features"), so provided they weren't copies of GW models then he was probably safe. The article says "so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank", which sounds to me like he was on very safe grounds. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Anderkent 14y ago

Except you're a single person and they're this scary huge corporation. If they do sue, what are you going to do? Not many are willing to take that risk.

mistercow 14y ago
But see, that's the same boat we were in before we had the DMCA. It's a problem that there's a two-week blackout on your stuff if someone files a takedown notice, but it does protect you from being sued right off the bat. In other words, if he's unwilling to risk filing the counter-notice, then without the DMCA, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been willing to risk uploading the models at all. But to answer your rhetorical question, if they do sue, you contact groups like the EFF and ask for help. (Better yet, contact them before filing the counter-notification). They would likely be happy to work to establish a good precedent in a novel situation like this.

grabeh 14y ago

I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken place. Also, contrast this story with the outcry over EA's alleged copying of GW models albeit digitally. http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc_mmo_is_a_baneblade_from_40k/ http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc...

mistercow 14y ago
Oh I definitely agree. I am assuming that he has a legitimate complaint for the sake of argument, because if he doesn't, then this is just the DMCA doing exactly what it's supposed to.
- grabeh 14y ago
  I suppose it's one of those areas where surely there is a fantastic opportunity for someone like GW to get on board with 3-D printing rather than looking to suppress usage. It's interesting because the whole point of the models is that they have specific attributes and fits in with the codexes. Surely if someone is making a separate design, it would be beneficial in terms of fostering increased support and take-up of the GW models. Although of course it all depends on the similarities between the two!
  - Qworg 14y ago
    Actually, the whole point of the models is that GW sells them. The prices for GW products has steadily increased over the years, even though their material costs have not. 3D printing totally upends their business model.
    - grabeh 14y ago
      Yes, traditionally they sell them but I think a licensing of the designs for usage in 3D printers could be a great driver of increased uptake. Not entirely sure what you're getting at with static material costs? Are you taking into account inflation and saying retail costs have increased at a greater rate? In any event, home printing would reduce their own costs and hopefully foster greater uptake.
nl 14y ago
I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken place. You probably should read the article. Even if there were similarities it wouldn't matter. Physical objects can be protected by (normal) patents, which protect physical functionality or design patents[1]. Even if GW did have a design patent (which is fairly rare) then it would only protect against identical copies. The standard of proof for design patent violation is that the new object could be mistaken as the original (not "has some similar features"), so provided they weren't copies of GW models then he was probably safe. The article says "so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank", which sounds to me like he was on very safe grounds. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent