DailyDirt: More Nature-Inspired Materials

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Lots of cool materials have been inspired by biological materials -- like velcro and surfaces with lotus leaf-like structures. Nature has had a headstart of a few hundred million years to create some useful materials, so it's a great (and open) source of inspiration for new human-made materials that might further improve upon the stuff we already have. Here are just a few more examples of biomimicry that could be everywhere in the near future.

• There's a type of beetle (Tmesisternus isabellae) that has a color-changing ability based on the interaction of humidity with nanostructures on its forewings. A color-changing pigment inspired by this beetle can be made with colloidal photonic crystals, and these materials resist color fading or bleaching better than traditional dyes and pigments -- and could be used in anti-counterfeiting inks. [url]
• The Venus' flower basket sea sponge grows very strong cable-like hairs, called spicules, to anchor these creatures to the sea floor. These spicules are made of nested glass fibers and demonstrate the advantage of these microstructural details for optimizing material strength. [url]
• A new lightweight bulletproof vest design could look like fish scales, covering a body with a protective layer that allows the wearer to still move freely. Scale armor isn't new, but 3D printing the scales and coming up with optimal protective structures could make a better kind of personal armor. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: 3d printing, anti-counterfeiting, beetle, biomimicry, bulletproof, colloidal photonic crystals, ink, materials, scale armor, spicules, tmesisternus isabellae

California Bill Would Require Libraries Post Scary Warning Signs Not To Do Infringy Stuff With 3D Printers

from the how-dare-you-build-useful-stuff dept

For a few years now, folks like Michael Weinberg have been pretty vocal about warning the world not to screw up 3D printing by falling for the same copyright/patenting mistakes that are now holding back other creative industries. Trying to lock up good ideas is not a good idea. Just recently we noted how 3D printing was challenging some long held beliefs about copyright, and we shouldn't simply fall into the old ways of doing things. At our inaugural Copia Institute summit, we had a really fascinating discussion about not letting intellectual property freakouts destroy the potential of 3D printing.

Well, here comes the start of the freakouts. Via Parker Higgins, we find out that there's a new bill in the California Assembly, AB-37*, which would require libraries that have 3D printers to post stupid signs warning people not to do nasty infringy things with those printers:

This bill would require every public library that provides public access to a 3D printer, as defined, to post a notice on or near the 3D printer that would alert users of the 3D printer of the potential liability of the user for misuse of the 3D printer, as specified. This bill would require the Department of Justice to draft and distribute this notice, as specified, and annually review and revise the notice for accuracy. By imposing additional duties upon local officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

In the actual text of the law, they're explicit about how it's about not infringing intellectual property:

The Department of Justice shall prepare and distribute to a public library that provides public access to a 3D printer a notice that would alert users of the 3D printer of the potential liability of the user for misuse of the 3D printer. The notice shall do all of the following:

(A) Provide citations to the applicable state and federal laws that may impose civil liability or criminal penalties for misuse of a 3D printer, including laws regarding copyright infringement and trademark and patent protection.

Katy Perry's left shark is weeping at the ridiculousness of it all.

First of all, this shows the ridiculous ownership mentality of some, who automatically assume that creating something new must be infringing on someone's rights somewhere. Second, the idea that government mandated signs are somehow going to alleviate such uses is ridiculous. Beyond the fact that government "warnings" about infringement are routinely mocked (or just widely ignored), this has all the markings of the old red flag laws, in which the government mandated that there needed to be someone waving a red flag walking in front of every automobile. Trying to place restrictions on new technology based on some fantasy possible problems is no way to create a more innovative society and economy. It's only a way to hinder it.

What's really unfortunate, is it appears this bill was proposed by Assemblymember Nora Campos -- who represents San Jose. In other words, our Copia Inaugural Summit, in which we discussed these exact issues and why people shouldn't overreact was held in her district. And while Campos was invited to the event, and a number of her colleagues in the California Assembly attended, she did not. Perhaps it would have been helpful to have her come and learn about the actual issues related to intellectual property and 3D printing, rather than pushing out a ridiculous bill like this.

* For unclear reasons, the bill was originally about drones, and was then amended to remove everything drone related and add all the 3D printing stuff. It is unclear why.

Filed Under: 3d printing, copyright, infringement, libraries, nora campos, warning signs

Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff: Why 3D Printed Objects Challenge Our Copyright Beliefs

from the 3d-printing-and-copyright dept

This blog post is reprinted from Public Knowledge, and is quite timely. On Thursday of this week, we'll be discussing this very topic at our Copia Inaugural Summit, with Natalia Krasnodebska from Shapeways. We'll also be distributing copies of this new report at the event. If you haven't signed up to attend or to join Copia, please check it out.

Among a host of other (arguably more important) wonders, widespread access to 3D printing raises all sorts of interesting intellectual property law questions. Some of these questions are the obvious result of combining physical objects, digital files, and the distributive power of the internet. Others, however, are less obvious. 3D printing has the potential to take many of the things we assume about intellectual property law and turn it on its head.

The past fifteen years or so have given us all a collective informal education in intellectual property law. We have been taught to assume that everything we see on our computer screen is protected by intellectual property law (usually copyright), and that copying those things without permission can often result in copyright infringement (and potentially lawsuits).

By and large, this has been a reasonable rule of thumb. The things that we most often associate with our computer screens – those are the music, movies, software, photos, articles, and whatnot – happen to also be the types of things that are protectable by copyrights. As copyright automatically protects things that are categorically eligible for protection, it is safe to begin from the assumption that the music, movies, software, photos, articles, and whatnot made in the last century that you find online are actively protected by copyright.

This easy assumption becomes less reasonable in the context of 3D printing. Many of the objects coming out of a 3D printer are simply not eligible for copyright protection. As “functional” objects, they are beyond copyright’s scope. They may be protectable by patent, but because patent protection is not automatic, many of these objects will simply not be protected by intellectual property at all. The idea that something is entirely unprotected by copyright or patent would have felt perfectly natural 30 years ago, but can feel deeply disorienting today.

Furthermore, unlike those music, movies, software, photos, articles, and whatnot, we often have to treat a physical object and the digital file that represents that object differently in the context of 3D printing and intellectual property. Although we do not often draw the distinction between a song and an .mp3 file, there are many situations where we are called on to conceive of an object and its digital file as fundamentally different intellectual property entities.

The importance of this difference manifests itself when people start to talk about licensing 3D printed things. Taking a page from the more traditional digital world, the conversation often starts with the relative strengths and weaknesses of various licenses. However, beginning there skips a fundamental and easy-to-overlook step: before considering which license to use, you need to know what you are actually licensing.

It was easy to skip this step with traditional digital media because the answer to “what can you license?” was almost always “everything.” But in the context of 3D printing, the answer is just as likely to be “nothing” or at least “only some parts.” Understanding what is and is not available to license is a new skill for our collective intellectual property education, and it is a critical one in the world of 3D printing.

In order to start this process, today we at Public Knowledge are releasing a new whitepaper called Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff. Instead of focusing on the differences between licenses, this paper walks you through how to figure out what is even available to license in the first place. Because until you understand that, everything else is just a detail.

Filed Under: 3d printing, copyright, intellectual property, ownership

FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why

from the baby,-bathwater dept

I recently toured a maker space in Burlington, and while I lack the inclination to build amazing contraptions out of Raspberry Pis, soldered metal and imagination myself, there's a Lego-loving corner of my brain that has an endless appreciation for the fusion of technology and creativity aided by modern marvels like 3D printers. It probably goes without saying that inexpensive and/or communal 3D printers, milling machines and other tools have opened the door toward a massive realm of new innovation, whether that's building less expensive prosthetic limbs, robotics or drones.

Of course, the fact that a lot of this technology can also help build weapons has resulted in no limit of hysteria that has a great potential to hamper a lot of the better aspects of this technological evolution. The latest case in point comes courtesy of FedEx, which is refusing to ship a computer controlled (CNC) mill dubbed the Ghost Gunner. Sold by Defense Distributed, the $1,500 machine can carve any number of aluminum objects from digital designs. With a few cheap extra parts, it can also help craft untraceable, semi-automatic firearms. This, apparently, has worried the FedEx legal and marketing departments:

"This device is capable of manufacturing firearms, and potentially by private individuals,” FedEx spokesperson Scott Fiedler wrote in a statement. “We are uncertain at this time whether this device is a regulated commodity by local, state or federal governments. As such, to ensure we comply with the applicable law and regulations, FedEx declined to ship this device until we know more about how it will be regulated."

Of course, we're entering an era where anything can be built at home, and just because firearms are among them, that doesn't make the tools illegal. Any lathe or mill can be used to help make a firearm; Defense Distributed appears to have gotten attention because of founder Cody Wilson's salty demeanor, and the fact it's specifically marketing their milling machine as a potential firearms maker. Again though, that doesn't magically make the ownership of such technologies against the law:

"But buying, selling, or using the Ghost Gunner isn’t illegal, nor is owning an AR-15 without a serial number, says Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "This is not that problematic,” he says. "Federal law does not prohibit individuals from making their own firearms at home, and that includes AR-15s."

When pressed, FedEx hasn't been able to give a decent reason why it has suddenly added milling machines to its list of unshippable materials alongside hazardous waste and corpses. As we've noted when discussing the hysteria over firearm printing instructions or legislative efforts to thwart gun printing, this is a genie that's well out of its bottle, and no limit of cajoling the agitated djinn back into confinement is likely to be successful. Still, it seems inevitable that we try, in the process stumbling on and over a myriad of technological potential in the misguided quest to roll back the clock to a simpler age.

Filed Under: 3d printing, cnc machines, cody wilson, guns, shipping, weapons
Companies: defense distributed, fedex

Can't Make This Up: Katy Perry's Lawyers Use Left Shark Photo Taken By Guy They're Threatening In Trademark Application

from the wait,-isn't-that-copyright-infringement? dept

The story of Katy Perry and the 3D printed Left Shark keeps getting more and more bizarre. If you don't recall, Perry's lawyers threatened legal action over plans that were made available online for a 3D printed version of "the Left Shark." This was the internet meme that became a thing after one of Perry's backup dancers (dressed in a shark costume) looked a bit off during the Super Bowl. As we discussed, Perry's copyright claim seemed more than a bit off. Then the guy who made the 3d printed shark, Fernando Sosa, retained law professor and copyright expert Chris Sprigman, who responded to Perry's lawyers, explaining how there was no copyright interest here and how it would probably be best for everyone to just walk away slowly. Or quickly.

But, you know, these are lawyers we're talking about. High-powered, high-paid entertainment industry lawyers. They're not ones to just back down when someone points out that their copyright argument is bullshit. No, they double down. And thus, we get Perry's pricey Greenberg Taurig lawyers' response to Sosa and Sprigman [pdf] in which they try, desperately, to create a magical copyrightable shark costume out of pixie dust and words. But, as Sprigman explains in response [pdf], their argument is not convincing.

Perry's lawyers argue that Perry's team designed the shark and thus it's theirs, theirs, theirs. They even made drawings. They also admit that, while costumes aren't copyrightable, other elements of the costume are, as being "separable." Basically, if there are unique creative elements, those are copyrightable. But that's a stretch. As for the drawings, so what?

First, you claim that the Left Shark costume is copyrightable because it is based on the “multiple shark drawings” you say were produced by Katy Perry’s team. The drawings are irrelevant. Sketches of Left Shark may be copyrightable, but that doesn’t make the Left Shark costume copyrightable. A design sketch of a ladies’ dress is copyrightable. And yet as anyone in the U.S. fashion industry will tell you, the dress on the rack is a useful article, which, like a costume, cannot be copyrighted. The drawings of Left Shark would be relevant only if my client had copied them in preparing his sculpture. But he didn’t copy the drawings – not least because he’s never seen them. My client saw only the Left Shark costume. As I explained in my previous letter, the Left Shark costume is an uncopyrightable useful article, and my client is free to copy it.

As for the "separable elements"? Sprigman does a nice job with the lawyerly version of "WTF are you talking about?"

Second, you suggest that “conceptually separable elements” of the Left Shark costume may be copyrightable. Would you please tell me which elements of the Left Shark costume you believe to be conceptually separable from the costume as a whole? The dorsal fin, perhaps? The gills? The teeth?

When I look at the Left Shark costume, I don’t see “conceptually separable elements.” I see a shark costume. I am obliged to admit that, unlike any shark I’ve seen, the Left Shark costume has legs (and a quick Google search reveals that many other shark costumes have legs). But that doesn’t make the Left Shark costume copyrightable. The Left Shark costume has legs because the person inside of it has legs. The legs are not “conceptually separable” from the Left Shark costume. They are integral to its function as a costume.

Finally, rather than just "drop" the issue, Perry's lawyers said that Sprigman could call them up and they could discuss a license. But, of course, without a copyright there is nothing to license. This gets back to the mistaken belief by some that someone must own everything and thus you absolutely have to get permission. That's not true.

Perry's lawyers build on this to argue that the only reason the Left Shark is valuable is because of Perry, and thus she should be able to control all the benefits from Left Shark. Except, as Sprigman points out, that's almost entirely bullshit. Perry didn't make the Left Shark a thing, but rather the internet made it a thing.

Likewise, I disagree with your suggestion that Katy Perry owns rights in Left Shark because any commercial value my client’s sculptures may have “derives solely from the public’s association of them with Ms. Perry.” That statement misunderstands the source of whatever (probably scant) commercial value Left Shark may possess. No one knew that one of the sharks dancing next to Katy Perry during the Super Bowl halftime show was Left Shark until the Internet told us so. The Internet decided that Left Shark’s flubbed dance moves were hilarious. It gave Left Shark his name, and then it made him into a meme. Left Shark isn’t really about Katy Perry.

There's even more in Sprigman's letter, but I actually wanted to focus on something else, which Fernando Sosa mentioned in his post about all of this. You see, after all of this blew up, Perry's lawyers also tried to file for a trademark on Left Shark. They pretty quickly gave that up (filed on February 6th and abandoned on February 10th). But here's the really crazy thing: they used Fernando Sosa's own image of his 3d printed shark as a part of their trademark application. In other words, you could argue that, while Perry has no copyright (or trademark) in Left Shark, it's conceivable that Perry's lawyers could have violated Sosa's copyright in the image of his 3D printed item in using it as part of their trademark application. Now I could make a fairly strong argument for fair use for Perry's lawyers to use Sosa's image, but still... When you're arguing that the model is infringing on a potentially non-existent copyright, it seems to be quite a show of hubris to use the image created by the guy you're threatening and use that in your own trademark application.

Oh, and Sosa is now back to offering his 3d printed shark for sale, as he seems confident that Perry's lawyers have no leg to stand on.

Filed Under: 3d printing, copyright, fernando sosa, katy perry, left shark, trademark

Left Shark Bites Back: 3D Printer Sculptor Hires Lawyer To Respond To Katy Perry's Bogus Takedown

from the jumping-the-shark dept

Did you think Katy Perry's lawyers sending a questionable cease & desist letter over 3d printable plans for "the left shark" backup dancer in Katy Perry's Superbowl Halftime routine would be the end of that story? It turns out that the guy who originally created the 3d printed figurine, Fernando Sosa, has now gone out and retained law professor/lawyer Chris Sprigman (the same Chris Sprigman we quoted in our original article detailing why a costume is a "useful article" and thus not copyrightable) to send a response to Perry's lawyers explaining copyright 101 to them.

Mr. Sosa is not especially eager to be fighting over copyright, but the legal merits of your claim seem very weak. (We also wonder what Katy Perry could possibly stand to gain from declaring war on an Internet meme, but that's her business.) Mr. Sosa has a few questions that he wants answered before he will remove Left Shark from the other online stores in which it is available.

First, can you tell me why you believe the costume of a shark that you claim Katy Perry owns is copyrightable? As you likely know, federal courts and the United States Copyright Office have made clear that costumes are generally not copyrightable. Please tell me why you think the Left Shark costume should be treated differently.

Second, what is the basis for your claim that Katy Perry, and not some other person, owns the copyright? Did Katy Perry design the Left Shark costume? If so, when? If not, who did? Did that person transfer any copyright interest he or she might have (in reality, very likely none) to Katy Perry? If so, when?

We ask about ownership not least because Katy Perry herself suggested that she didn't have control over the content of her halftime show, but rather the NFL did. See, for example, her recent interview with Ell magazine:

"In my show, I am boss daddy. I am bossy mommy. They call me Boss. Everything goes through my eyes; I call all the shots, 100 percent of it. With the NFL, I have to be accountable to several levels of red tape. There are many committees I have to go through for my costumes, the budgets of my show, every interview--everything, I have to report to somebody. So I am no longer the boss; I have to relinquish that control."

At the very least, Katy Perry's own account raises questions about what, if anything, she owns. If she wasn't the boss of her halftime show, she's also unlikely to be the copyright owner.

Sprigman also ends his letter with some quite sane advice: perhaps Katy Perry's lawyers should just drop this:

I'll end my letter with a simple request: Just drop this thing. My client wants to get back to his business, and he (and I'd wager pretty much everyone else) would be grateful if you'd just back off. Going ahead with these very dubious copyright claims will not benefit Katy Perry. But if you're determined to press on, please do respond to my legal questions, and we can try to work it out from there.

This may be some of the best advice given to opposing lawyers. Now the question is whether or not Perry's lawyers will take it.

Filed Under: 3d printing, chris sprigman, copyright, costumes, fernando sosa, katy perry, left shark, useful articles

There's Something Fishy With Katy Perry's Left Shark 3D Printing Takedown

from the you-can't-copyright-that dept

I spent this past Sunday spending time with my family and some friends not watching the Super Bowl, so I missed all the commercials and the exciting finish to the game... and the half-time show and the wonder that is the left shark. Still, I heard plenty about it on the internet because apparently the people I follow on Twitter couldn't get enough of the whole shark thing. If you were lucky enough to avoid it entirely, apparently Perry had some shark dancers, and the one on the left appeared to be somewhat... less coordinated than the right one (though Perry's team now claims that the choreography went off exactly as planned).

Either way, the left shark has become a thing. And, so, of course, someone had to go make a 3D printable version of it -- and uploaded plans to Shapeways. Well, until Perry's lawyers stepped in and said nuh uh. Her big time lawyers are claiming that the plans violate Perry's copyright and demanded that Shapeways cease and desist, and provide a "full accounting" of any money they made from it.

Our client recently has learned that you have been involved in the manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of merchandise featuring a shark sculpture which embodies and uses the IP, and that you have displayed this product on your website, www.shapeways.com, in connection with such sale and distribution.

As you are undoubtedly aware, our client never consented to your use of its copyrighted work and IP, nor did our client consent to the sale of the infringing product. Your unauthorized display and sale of this product infringes our client's exclusive rights in numerous ways, including, but not limited to, infringement of our client's exclusive rights to reproduce, display, and distribute its copyrighted images under the United States Copyright Act as set forth in 17 U.S.C. §106.

Your infringing conduct entitles our client to significant legal relief against you, which may include actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, as well as immediate and permanent injunctive relief.

Shapeways has apparently consented, but it's worth noting that almost all of the above is a bunch of hogwash. As law profess Chris Sprigman pointed out, a shark costume is almost certainly a "useful article" and thus, is not subject to copyright protection:

For purposes of copyright registration, fanciful costumes will be treated as useful articles. Costumes serve a dual purpose of clothing the body and portraying their appearance. Since clothing the body serves as a useful function, costumes fall within the literal defdtion of useful article. In addition. the case law consistently treats I costumes as useful articles, and a Copyright Office decision to differ substantially from these court decisions would appear difficult to justify.

But, for now the files have been taken down, because, really is it worth a lawsuit over the left shark?

We've been pointing out for years that there are going to be a number of intellectual property questions raised by 3D printing. And while this one isn't particularly deep in terms of raising new issues of law, considering it some bizarre foreshadowing of legal disputes to come.

Filed Under: 3d printing, cease & desist, copyright, katy perry, left shark, takedowns, useful articles
Companies: shapeways

College Claims Copyright On 16th Century Michelangelo Sculpture, Blocks 3D Printing Files

from the broken-systems dept

For many years we've been warning that intellectual property wars over things like music and movies were just a preview to the sort of insanity that would come about when 3D printing goes mainstream. We've seen some copyright takedowns of 3D printed objects in the past, but here's an absolutely crazy one.

Jerry Fisher, a photographer in Sioux Falls South Dakota, was interested in 3D printing and 3D image capture. So he went and photographed two local bronze casts of Michelangelo statues, one of Moses which is on display at Augustana College and is co-owned by Augustana and the City of Sioux Falls, and another of David, which is in a local city park. He documented his efforts to take the photos and turn them into 3D printer plans. However, the folks at Augustana College demanded that he stop, arguing a bizarre mix of copyright and... "we don't like this." Fisher asked the city of Sioux Falls for its opinion and got back a ridiculous response:

Fisher took the fight a bit further to the city, where he was informed that the photos were probably not a problem, but transforming them into models (especially if they were to be sold) could be a copyright violation. Attempting to get the issue of contemporary photogrammetry into the light, Fisher pointed out that the statues are in the public domain — not to mention their age — or true owner of the copyright on them. What is the actual law on what can and cannot be done? After getting nowhere with the entities who started the potential battle, Fisher really had no answers.

Even while Fisher seems to recognize that there's no copyright issue here, fearing liability, he apparently still removed his images and plans from the internet. As Public Knowledge's Michael Weinberg explains, there is absolutely no legal basis whatsoever for the demand:

Let’s get one thing out of the way right now: Augustana College had no legal right or basis to threaten Fisher with the specter of infringement. There is no copyright protection for a sculpture that was created at the dawn of the 16th century by a sculptor who died 450 years ago. All of Michelangelo’s work is firmly in the public domain. If fact, copyright didn’t even exist during Michelangelo’s lifetime. From the moment he sculpted his Moses anyone could copy, remix, and build upon it for any reason, without having to ask permission.

Of course, the sculpture in Sioux Falls is not Michelangelo’s original sculpture. The original Moses is still in Italy. The Sioux Falls sculptures are exact replicas made in the early 1970s - exact replicas, it seems appropriate to mention, that were made without permission of Michelangelo’s estate because the originals are not protected by copyright. There was no copyright on the original sculpture, and there is no copyright in the exact copies of the original sculpture.

If Fisher were practicing his 3D scanning on original sculptures made in the early 1970s, the sculptures would likely still be protected by copyright. Fortunately for Fisher and everyone else, the sculpture in question is not an original sculpture – it is a copy. Just as scanning a 16th century map doesn’t give me a new copyright in the scan file, casting a copy of a 16th century sculpture doesn’t give me a new copyright in the cast.

Without a copyright in the original sculpture or the reproduction, there is simply no copyright reason that Fisher shouldn’t be able to make as many scans as he likes.  It is irresponsible, and undermines Augustana’s mission to “enrich[] lives by exposure to enduring forms of aesthetic and creative expressions,” for Augustana to suggest otherwise.

As Weinberg notes, there was probably nothing nefarious in the minds of whoever at Augustana made the original request. Rather, they took the lazy way out -- and the one that contains a lot less legal risk. If you're unsure, just say, "Hey, you can't do this or you might get in trouble," even if that's not true. And, further, he notes, one of the big problems with copyright law is that its statutory damages encourages much more risk avoidance than normal, and that's a real problem:

Many lawyers are cautious by nature, but there are elements of copyright law that give them an extra incentive to be even more cautious than usual.  Specifically, a quirk of copyright law can make monetary damages balloon unusually quickly in infringement cases.

In order to get money in most civil cases you need to show your damages.  Get hit by a car? Show the court your medical bills and lost wages.  Painter paint your wall hot pink instead of staid beige?  Show the court how much it cost you to get the work redone.

Copyright law is different when it comes to damages.  A copyright holder can sue for actual damages, just like the person hit by a car or with a bad paint job.  But they also have the option to sue for what are called “statutory damages.”  Instead of pointing to the actual cost of infringement (that illegal download of a song deprived the artist of $0.99), a copyright holder can just point to an amount that is written into the text of the law to serve as the value of the damages.  That amount can be in the six figures for a single infringement (that’s how infringing 24 songs can result in a $1.5 million damages award).

Among other things, the threat of these statutory damages makes lawyers super cautious around potential copyright infringement claims.  Even if he was infringing, the actual cost of Fisher making unauthorized copies of the sculpture would likely be no more than a few hundred dollars (if that).  Faced with that kind of liability, a lawyer may decide to take a bit of a risk and err on the side of public access.  But in the face of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of liability, a lawyer has to be pretty sure before saying “yes,” even if they start from the assumption that the work is in the public domain.  And getting that sure can take a lot of time.

Of course, the other reason crap like this happens is the ridiculous belief -- often driven by propaganda from the legacy copyright industry -- that every bit of cultural content must be owned by someone. The public domain is something to be shunned or denied at every turn. And, as a result you get crazy stories like this one.

Filed Under: 3d printing, copyright, jerry fisher, michelangelo, public domain, sioux falls, south dakota
Companies: augustana college