Whatever the nuances are surrounding the reported taking down of remixes derived from the famous Benchy 3D printer stress test, it was inevitable that in its aftermath there would be competing stress tests appear under more permissive licensing. And so it has come to pass, in the form of [Depep1]’s Boaty, a model that’s not a boat, but a bench. Sadly this is being written away from a 3D printer so we can’t try it, but we can immediately see that its low bed contact area from having spindly legs would be a significant test for many printers’ bed adhesion, and it has overhangs and bridges aplenty.
It’s always interesting to see new takes on a printer stress test, after all we can all use something to check the health of our machines. But the Benchy saga isn’t something we think should drive you away from the little boat we know and love, as it remains an open-source model as it always has been. We don’t know the exact reasons why the derivatives were removed, but we understand from Internet scuttlebut that the waters may be a little more cloudy than at first supposed. If there’s any moral at all to the story, it lies in reading and understanding open source licences, rather than just assuming they all allow us to do anything we want.
Meanwhile it’s likely this model will be joined by others, and we welcome that. After all, innovation should be part of what open source does.
Missed the Benchy takedown story? Catch up here.
Thanks [Jeremy G] for the tip.
My understanding is that the original 3D model was released under a Creative Commons no-derivatives license and that the removals are not because the copyright holder of the original 3D model has issued takedowns but because the 3D print catalogs hosting them are concerned about potential lawsuits and are removing the content now rather than risk being sued later.
Removing the unauthorized derivative works that is.
Not quite, the “original” owner is on record publically saying they don’t really mind the derivatives and didn’t intend to enforce the “ND” part of the licence.
However that company was sold to a business to business focused corporation, who have indeed sent out blanket takedown notices. They probably had no idea what kind of fire they would be lighting by doing that. It might even be unintended: maybe they’ve contracted a trigger happy third party paralegal with the brief of “protect the IP associated with our recent acquisition”.
All that said, I’m not sure .stl files should even be considered “open source”, in the same sense that most people wouldn’t EVER consider describing a compiled binary .exe file as open source.
The minimum standard for “true” source of a 3D model requiring mechanical/dimensional accuracy, should really be a .step file, which is essentially the “lossless vector” to .stl’s “lossy jpeg approximation” of the geometry that was created in the CAD software.
The owner is on the record saying none of the takedown requests came from them or their parent companies. And Printables has said the original claims came from a “3rd party”.
Perhaps that’s all a lie from someone who is trying to put out a fire, or some unaffiliated ratbag has decided to do it on the behalf of the owner without their knowledge (german lawyers love this one trick)
Look out for a new version of the OG called ‘Das boot’, perhaps?
This thread is more correct and properly sourced than 90% of the articles on this topic. Congrats.
First we had the Streisand Effect, and now we have the Benchy Effect. It will be interested to hear from the new copyright owners, What Were You Thinking?
Closely related to the FTDI effect, lest we forget.
Nice thing about this model is that it has flat areas that are easy to measure for dimensional accuracy.
This. Something easily and repeatedly measurable across prints and printers.
“the Benchy saga isn’t something we think should drive you away from the little boat” That’s correct – there’s plenty other things that should drive you away from it. It’s an ancient test that’s no longer current; plenty better test objects have been created since the benchie first appeared and many tell you more while consuming much less material.
Would you be willing to post examples of your favourites?
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:182322
And yeah…I printed it :) https://flic.kr/p/hPT5N8
Could all the “smart” people and copyright or patent lawyers tell me…. Who owns the IP to the boat that Benchy is modeled after? Just asking because we have a couple hundred years of patent infringement to deal with here at the law office of Boates, Tugs, and Leggs.
If you need to ask for the name of owner, something is definately wrong there.
Nothing a paralegal worth their pay can’t fix quickly after hours
Determining who owns a copyright is virtually impossible unless your the owner or they specifically make that information public. There is no copyright registry the public can access, things don’t have to be registered to be copyrighted, and the ownership doesn’t get updated when it’s sold. See the “Happy Birthday” lawsuit for an example.
Yeah, there’s a big issue with people taking copyrights or CCA rights onto things they modeled, but have no legal rights to. One guy sells 3d models of Mercedes F1 racing wheels. He has no rights to any of it, but he sells the models under non derivative and non commercial, when it absolutely shouldn’t be. Be a real shame if Mercedes sent him a takedown.
Misusing a copyrighted piece is piracy, but claiming it yours – and worse, not giving attribution to the original – is taking it even further.
Making a toy model of a car may be enough creativity to earn copyright, or the model may actually be created with a proper license. Saying that each model is without license is likely too crude, but stating the very minimal license seems good damage control.
So from that aspect, not making the model public or stating that the models can’t be re-shared is the most sensible thing.
“Be a real shame if Mercedes sent him a takedown.”
Did you mean that they should or they shouldn’t?
I wish the Lawyer at Prusa would get together with a few American Copyright Attorneys and write a Summary on WHAT can and can’t be copyright protected. So many modelers just slap licenses on models they have absolutely no rights to. I see characters and designs that are owned by million and billion dollar companies just being claimed by Randoms online.
“I wish the Lawyer at Prusa would […] write a Summary on WHAT can and can’t be copyright protected.”
What interest is that to prusa?
They rules are different around the world, but basically very simple: if you did everything yourself (and it’s of certain types of creative work) you have the copyright to share as you please. If you didn’t do everything yourself you need to have explicit authorisation to do anything non-private with it.
Modelling is a bit of a gray area. Is the creativity of the model enough to merit copyright? Is the creativity of the original so low that it’s not protected? I don’t know if modelling has been taken to court, but I’d look at photography for inspiration. Just snapping a picture of a painting and saying you own that… Easy to do, but rather shady. Finding the interesting angle, selecting lighting and context, that can be your claim for copyright, even though you need to be ready to defend it if challenged.
“So many modelers just slap licenses on models they have absolutely no rights to.”
Misusing a copyrighted piece is piracy, but claiming it yours – and worse, not giving attribution to the original – is taking it even further.
I suppose the reason for the last part is that the platforms tried to enforce legal uploads (or rather protect themselves) through user self-certification. There’s no way to upload if you say “I’ve taken this from Disney” so you take the easy route and say that you own the copyright. And if nobody enforce the original right, people start to assume that it’s ok. The open source movement is working within the copyright framework to share or protect the right to share. Of course there’s also the “internet is free” movement that actually propose piracy and especially think big corp are the bad guys. And then the general bunch that actually don’t care whatever, probably bigger a bigger group than those that are clueless.
My main message is that information may not be the thing needed, but it’s interesting to see platforms live off of the little person doing the work.
Imagine being that guy taking down a stupid little boat that you can just build and blender in 2 minutes with your eyes closed. Lol
Finally, a real bench test for 3D printers.
I’ve never printed a benchy and I never will, honestly I despise that model. However I could get behind this benchmark!
“honestly I despise that model”
so edgy
This is why decentralization is important. Trifling legal bs like this will always be going on; the only practical limit is what is enforceable. If people were hosting these files on their own websites or one something like limewire good luck scouring the web trying to stamp out all of them.
I’m sure movie studios would force you to pay extra to watch your movie with a friend if they had a practical way to stop you.
Lets not make the jobs of bureaucrats and lawyers too easy now.
Can we stop the ridiculous outrage? There was a clear license, and whether the original owner enforced it or not, plenty of people violated it. By his very definition of benchmark should be immutable fixed item, so there’s literally no reason for this “corporations are evil and are trying to destroy my life garbage in this case”. You can still access the STL just like you did yesterday and it works just the same. Just stop making freaking unauthorized modifications. It’s not hard.