Licensing individual objects?

I am a newbie, so please excuse my ignorance.

I want to create a “library” of useful models (glassware, in this case) and realease it under a permissive license, such as CC-BY-SA or GFDL. But these licenses require that anyone who copies an object must also copy the license and explicitly note that the copyright of the object belongs to me, and that any recipient is free to copy it under that same license.

Copying this license appears to me to be a huge burden: so huge that a user of my (trivial) library will either ignore my license terms and just illegally copy the object, or will give up and not use my objects at all.

To avoid this, I would prefer to simply attach the license to the object, so that that copying the object automatically copies the license. This is exactly how the license in a Python script file works: the license is embedded in the script file, so anyone who copies the file automatically copies the copyright info.

The relevant information is quite small: less than 300 characters even if we treat it as free-form text. Here is an example:
"this object is copyright © 2010 by Harvey Schmedlap (Harvey at Schmedlap.com) You are licensed to use it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, a copy of which you should have recreived along with the file in which this object is embedded. Please see creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0.

So now, the newbie question: Is there a way to embed the copyright information in the object?

The best way to embed your information is to create a text entry within the .blend file. That is assuming you are using Blender since Blender does have a text editor built in.

Another way is to Create the text you want in a layer in the .blend file.

Just be aware that an end user can always delete the licensing information and any text you put into your .blend file.

I have also seen the copyright notice just added as a part of the mesh (any file format will do). Then there is no way to ignore it. The end-user must edit the mesh to remove your message to use it in a commercial project.

Just a question. Your CC-BY-SA or GFDL does allow a users to include your work in a commercial application without explicitly stating to the end viewer that you made the model? Doesn’t it?

If it does not, it should. Otherwise you should not release you model for free. You should sell them.

How do you propose to enforce the copyleft nature of that license and keep everyone’s fair use rights intact?

Fair use means that anyone can use a portion of your mesh and license their resulting work as they see fit, while your copyleft provision tells them to license it only CC-BY-SA, essentially destroying fair use rights, even if that is not what you intend.

It’s a touchy subject further compounded in the U.S. by the fact that only Federal Judges can declare what is or isn’t a fair use of a piece of art. But if someone is only using 100 of your vertexes, with 1000 of their own, they are forced to license their work under the BY-SA license.

Two or three clause BSD, an MIT-style, or the Artistic license would appear to meet your needs.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0

imo much better license… :confused:

Link, please?

This is completely inaccurate. Copyrighted material is copyrighted material. Whether you use one vertex from a model or 10,000 vertices, if you’re using someone else’s work (and they can prove it), then you’re subject to their copyright. Fair use has nothing - I repeat, nothing - to do with how much of someone else’s work you use in your own. Without their explicit permission (such as a CC license), you cannot legally use any part of their work in your own. Period.

Umm… no. Fair use does exist. At least in the USA. And many other countries have similar “fair dealings” concepts.

How much of a work you use is, indeed, one of several factors considered when determining whether the use is fair or not.

The problem with fair use is that it is very vague. There are no codified rules that a normal person can reference to know for certain if their use is considered fair or not. So you’re always walking on iffy ground if you’re depending on fair use. This is quite unfortunate, IMO.

Whether you use one vertex from a model or 10,000 vertices, if you’re using someone else’s work (and they can prove it), then you’re subject to their copyright.

Just FYI, Fweeb, I have a model with a vertex at coordinate <1,0,0> in it. Please refrain from copying this in your models. I will defend my copyright.

From USA copyright law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

Clearly the amount of the work copied is not the only factor under consideration. But it is one of them.

The real important bit about ‘Fair Use’:

…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

The usage y’all are talking about here is called ‘derivative work’.

Keep in mind: that list exemplifies rather than defines fair use (hence the “such as”). It would actually be much nicer if it did define fair use, since then fair use would be clear. Derivative works are not categorically excluded from fair use.

I never disputed that fair use provisions exist in copyright law. My point was (however inarticulately I wrote it) that pseudonymous’ assertion that portions could be used “as they see fit” is inaccurate… as is the suggestion that a CC license somehow hampers the fair use provisions that are allowed. The acceptable qualifiers for fair use are actually quite specific (“purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research”). Applied cases are admittedly vague, but a generalized “as they see fit” does not fall into that realm.

Hence the reason I wrote “if you’re using someone else’s work (and they can prove it).” :wink:

Anyhow, this discussion is changed quite a bit from the OP. I doubt we really want to dive down the rabbit hole of the intricacies of copyright law (yet again)… especially considering how few of us here are actually lawyers.

Yeah…

But the original example “if someone is only using 100 of your vertexes, with 1000 of their own” (which infers a co-mingling) would almost certainly be a derivative work.

But that has little to do with the law once something is proven. If I was the only person that had ever created such a vertex, and I could prove it, I’m pretty sure it would still fall under fair use for you to reproduce it. Although, then again, seeing some of the winning lawsuits these days, perhaps I shouldn’t be so sure.

Anyhow, this discussion is changed quite a bit from the OP. I doubt we really want to dive down the rabbit hole of the intricacies of copyright law (yet again)… especially considering how few of us here are actually lawyers.

Yeah. And in any case, modern copyright law is so absurdly out of whack with ethics and common sense that–aside from practical matters like avoiding being sued–I just don’t really care anymore. Heh.

EDIT:

as is the suggestion that a CC license somehow hampers the fair use provisions that are allowed.

Indeed, I suspect it is impossible for any copyright license to lawfully nullify fair use. This goes for CC, GPL, etc. as well as evil EULA’s. Otherwise this would be done all the time.

Colleagues:

I’m a blender newbie, but I’m pretty much a copyright expert. I do not need help in picking an appropriate copyright, and I do not need help in interpreting copyright law. If we need to discuss these issues, please start another thread.

What I need is a way to tag an object with a copyright notice. Here are the requirements:

  • When a user imports an object from my .blend “library” file, the copyright notice will automatically be copied. “Automatically” means that the user does not need to perform any additional action other than importing the object.
  • The notice must be attached to the object, not an independent part of the destination .blend file.
  • The notice must not interfere with the use of the object in the user’s .blend file.
  • The notice must not interfere with rendering.
  • The notice must not impose a big speed or space penalty.

That’s it. I just want it to be easy for a user to use my objects while still complying with my license. there are no further requirements.

Here are some additional desirable features of such a system:

  • It would be nice if it were easy for a user to know that a notice is attached to an object.
  • It would be nice if it were easy to read the notice.
  • It would be nice if the notice system became a standard, so we can all use it.

(responding to Pseudononymous)

I don’t think you mean “fair use” here. With “fair use,” you still agree that the part you are copying is validly copyrighted by me. If this is the case, then your “fair use” is highly restricted. I think you are more worried about re-use of some element of my work that is not subject to copyright at all: this is called the scenes a faire doctrine. If you invoke “fair use,” then you still must still attribute the work to me: you are not asserting that my copyright is invalid, you are merely asserting that your “fair use” does not require that you adhere to my license.

If you invoke the “scenes a faire” doctrine, you are claiming that the portion of my object that you have copied is not actually copyrightable at all, because it is not actually a new creative work by me: it is a commonly-used element of creative works of this type. (example: of course you use a glass material for a goblet!) If you assert scenes a faire, you are free to remove the copyright notice from an object you have modified such that it no longer uses any “creative elements” that are unique to my original work. This is NOT the same as fair use. With fair use, you acknowledge that you are copying my creative work. With scenes a faire, you are asserting that the part you copied does not embody any creative elements.

There is another relevant element of US copyright law: this relates to computer programs. A blender object is in reality a specialized computer program. In US copyright law, portions of a program that implement an algorithm that cannot reasonably be implemented in another way, are considered to be non-creative and therefore non-copyrightable. If I copyright an object that uses six vertices to model a cube, then I cannot claim that your object that uses six vertices to model a cube is in violation of my copyright.

Should be able to do it with a custom property (bpy.props.StringProperty) but that doesn’t seem to be working right now… or maybe I’m just not doing it right, those custom properties are kind of confusing.

Either way it’d let you attach a copyright notice to an object fulfilling all your ‘requirements’.

Thanks! I will investigate this feature.

Follow-up: This page:
www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-243/more-243-features/
shows that you can simply add a custom ID-property to your object. Teh page specifically lists copyright as an example. This worked fro me in Blender 2.49a. Apparently, the feature is getting better integrated in 2.5.

@Arch dude
Your original post is a little confusing. You speak of people making illegal copies, but under a cc license it would be difficult for someone to make an illegal copy. Since the license allows for copying and modification. It also allows others to claim authorship of any modifications and to use the object commercially. So the only real issue is private gain. However someone converting the object to another format and charging a fee could claim to be working in the spirit of share alike and on behalf of the community. If I’m wrong please clarify.
It seems to me that what your after is some way to water mark a blend file, this may be possible but it wouldn’t prevent someone from exporting the object to another format and at the same time eradicating the string data .
AFAIK there is no way to watermark a 3D object.
You could try to write an algorithm which modifies the point order. You could arrange the point order so that a specific part of the object acts as a finger print. Since many exporters afaik take point order into account a converted object will have the same point order.
Off course that won’t prevent someone from generating a new point order.