Companies using 3D Scanners shoot themselves in the foot

[Stratospheremodels]

Scale model companies using 3D Scanners are shooting themselves in the foot (specifically scale model companies).

I did a bit of research and what i found is quite interesting and worth reading:

Basically, it turns out that if a model kit company decides to 3D scan a real aircraft to make an injected scale model kit from it, they have just thrown their copyright claim for their model product right out the window.

As explained below, even though the original creator of the airplane may have had a copyright for the airplane, the 3D scan of the airplane cannot be protected by a copyright.

This is an extract from several links and pages recently published by Shapeways to address the increasing use of 3D scanning technology by 3D modelers who then 3D print "their" work and the legal copyright problems associated with this practice.

LINK:

https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf

What About Scans?

"While not necessarily intuitive, the copyright rules for scans are fairly straightforward: there is no new copyright for the scan file. Unlike a person who takes a photograph, a person who scans an existing object does not get a copyright just for the scan.

Briefly, this is because courts do not consider the act of scanning to be sufficiently original to receive copyright protection. The goal of a scan is to create as faithful a copy as possible, thus leaving no room for artistic interpretation by the scanner. While accurate scanning may require a great deal of skill and effort, it does not have sufficient originality to be eligible for copyright protection.

The result is that a scan of an existing object gives the creator of the scan no ability to control the object itself, nor does it give her the ability to control the scan file with copyright. If the scan was of an object protected by copyright, the creator of the object may be able to control the reproduction of the scan file, but the scanner herself is without legal rights.

The end result is that no copyright license can be attached to a scan file by the person who created the scan."

From : 3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff

by Michael Weinberg

So, as a technical tool, 3D scanning is a double edged sword, because on the one hand it may accelerate the creation of "product" (i.e, the good old photocopier effect), but just because you have "photocopied" the Harry Potter book does not mean you own a copyright on the work of J.K. Rowlings. So basically anyone using such a tool to reproduce an object (in the case that interest us here, an airplane) to create a product, basically cannot come complain later on if someone else copies his product because it cannot be protected by copyright in the first place... (so much for making the job of creating a new plastic model kit faster...). So, for those in China and Turkey who recently have been using this technology and for anyone who might want to use 3D scanners to create their next product, in the end, the time saving advantage (IF they know how to use this technology efficiently) might be totally offset by the financial loss that may follow due to the impossibility to copyright protect "their" work. I guess some people should have done their homework before proceeding.

Website: http://www.picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels

Edited May 25, 2016 by Stratospheremodels

[niart17]

umm...I doubt it's going to stop a model KIT company from having a copyright on that kit. Scanning an object and printing it is one thing. Scanning it and then using those scans to create 3D models which then in turn can be machined into metal molds to create an injection kit is something entirely different. There are "creative" decisions that HAVE to be made in order to produce an injection molded kit. So I don't think this applies. Sure, if I scan an object and then have it 3D printed as-is, unless I own the original object copyright then perhaps that's not copyrightable....but a model kit. I'd be willing to bet it is.

Just my opinion though.

Bill

[Stratospheremodels]

You are discussing functional manufacturing aspects versus aesthetic (creative) aspects, and generational aspects here.

A point cloud file translated into a G-Code file for CNC cutting and then making a metal injection mold giving a final product made of plastic is simply a question of different generations derived from the same originating file.

The same way as a resin kit originates from (depending on the technique used to make the tooling) either a CAD file (or from a handmade tooling) which is then translated into an .STL file to 3D print parts to then make silicone molds and end up with a final product made of cast resin.

Injected plastic model kits are also decorative objects meant for a final decorative purpose, not functional objects (let's ignore moving control surfaces here, which are more of a adjunct to the decorative function on some kits rather than an actual admission that the injected airplane plastic kits are functional items). I mention functional versus decorative here because copyright and patent laws also differentiates between those, but mostly for the purpose of deciding of what can be patented, and what cannot be patented. In this case a scale model plastic kit could not be patented as an invention, it could only be copyrighted.

Injection molds are purely tools that are not the final product. A model kit maker might have a claim to an ownership of their injection mold, obviously, but the mold is only a step on the way to the final product, and as such it is not the final product itself. Any practical changes introduced to the original point cloud file to respect the requirements of injection molding (a part must be able to demold from the tool, draft angles added, and so on) are minor functional (not creative) modifications that do not change the fact that most of the final product is still a carbon copy (if a company using this technology did their job well) of the original aircraft. Since no interpretation is added and the product started as a carbon copy of the original real life aircraft, there is no artistic interpretation taking place in the design process, and thus, they cannot legally claim a copyright. But don't take my word for it, it's the legal experts who say so, not me, although i would strongly tend to agree with them.

In no way am i saying here that co. so and so did their job well of using 3D scanning technology (quite the contrary actually, i will talk about this in much more details in a different venue) as based on what i have seen and on what the public have seen, it is clear this was not the case (but i am not going to start a discussion here about accuracy of such or such company, the issue i want to point out specifically here is the issue of copyright ownership related to 3D scan data).

And thus, no, there is absolutely no difference between 3D printing an airplane part or a whole airplane miniature from the data of a 3D scan versus using the same 3D scan data to make an injection mold to make a plastic model kit. The 3D printing machine and the injection mold and injection press are simply tools to make the final product. Both of them (depending on the type of 3D printing machine also) require that the original file be slightly modified, adapted in some small ways so that plastic parts may be 3D printed or injected. However I am pretty much sure if Mercedez 3D scanned a BMW and then manufactured it either with 3D printing or with CNC cutting, etc, Mercedez would still say they have no copyright over that shape.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Stratospheremodels

[RCAFFAN]

There has never been any sort of copyright on scale models as they are artistic impressions of a real object.... Early Academy armor kits were copies of Tamiya kits right down to the boxart. Tamiya could stop them from using the copyright box art but not copying the models themselves. Same with the original release of Academy's B-17s that said "Boeing B-17" on the box. They had to take the "Boeing" off as that is a copyright corporate name but the model was just released with a new box as Boeing couldn't stop them making a scale artistic interpretation of a B-17. Copyright is for something new but a scale copy of it is not new, just a scale copy that is not a real machine. That's why Meng made technical pickups but certainly didn't put 'Toyota" on the tailgate as "Toyota" has the rights to their name. Same with kits of small 4X4s not using "Jeep" as that is copyright. Now some companies do work out deals with the original manufacturer (most Car models for example) so they can use the "Name" of the product but you can make a model without their permission. I notice model tires often have a misspelled name on the side to avoid paying rights to the name holder but the tires are still made. Now if you were making copies of a kit by a certain manufacturer and trying to sell them as that manufacturer's kits, that is a different matter as it is a fraud but not a copyright issue....

[Stratospheremodels]

There has never been any sort of copyright on scale models as they are artistic impressions of a real object.... Early Academy armor kits were copies of Tamiya kits right down to the boxart. Tamiya could stop them from using the copyright box art but not copying the models themselves. Same with the original release of Academy's B-17s that said "Boeing B-17" on the box. They had to take the "Boeing" off as that is a copyright corporate name but the model was just released with a new box as Boeing couldn't stop them making a scale artistic interpretation of a B-17. Copyright is for something new but a scale copy of it is not new, just a scale copy that is not a real machine. That's why Meng made technical pickups but certainly didn't put 'Toyota" on the tailgate as "Toyota" has the rights to their name. Same with kits of small 4X4s not using "Jeep" as that is copyright. Now some companies do work out deals with the original manufacturer (most Car models for example) so they can use the "Name" of the product but you can make a model without their permission. I notice model tires often have a misspelled name on the side to avoid paying rights to the name holder but the tires are still made. Now if you were making copies of a kit by a certain manufacturer and trying to sell them as that manufacturer's kits, that is a different matter as it is a fraud but not a copyright issue....

In the case you mention, about the Meng "technicals" pick-up trucks with Dashika MGs in the back and Toyota, here it is more of a case of China can tell lawyers from country so and so to go take a walk, because... they can. They even copy whole Sukhoi fighter planes which they call their J-11, J-15, etc... so, a small miniature Toyota pick-up truck will certainly not stop them. It is more a case of the culture and the way industries work in China than a question of Toyota could not sue them. They could, and they most certainly would if it was done in most other countries. I know of many companies who tried (against Chinese companies), but because they can hide behind the PRC, they always can tell them to take a walk.

As for artistic interpretation, this is particularly where copyright law would allow one to make a product so and so and still have a copyright on it. Of course it is a matter of debate how much artistic interpretation there is.

If scale models were not copyrightable, everyone would have copied each other since a long time ago and only 1 or 2 companies would be producing original kits and everyone else would be copying them.

On another point, about cars, most of not all kit manufacturers have to work deals and licenses with car manufacturers if they want to have access to the data, blueprints, dimensions, and use the name on their packaging, that's because these are commercial products (versus military products produced under gov't contract as is the case for fighter aircrafts, bombers, tanks and so on, and which as such escape the need for license. But please, let's not start a discussion on commercial versus non-commercial products, non-copyrighted due to gov't contract versus commercial products.

[spejic]

And thus, no, there is absolutely no difference between 3D printing an airplane part or a whole airplane miniature from the data of a 3D scan versus using the same 3D scan data to make an injection mold to make a plastic model kit.

Unless the kit consists of one part, there surely is a difference. There is a creative decision in how the parts are broken down, the shape of the parts not scanned (like the backs of parts), and the modification of parts that cannot be produced in scale.

[Stratospheremodels]

Unless the kit consists of one part, there surely is a difference. There is a creative decision in how the parts are broken down, the shape of the parts not scanned (like the backs of parts), and the modification of parts that cannot be produced in scale.

As to how they would make sub-assemblies and design tabs for attaching parts together at the back, it is something which is technical in nature rather than aesthetic, they certainly have much leeway as to where and how they can add these to their parts, but again, i doubt very much that anyone could claim a copyright simply by doing that while still using a carbon copy of the outer shape of an aircraft that they scanned.

Just like the case of copying, scanning a full size BMW, even if you changed the unseen assembly components that are inside the frame of the car, it still remains a copy of the BMW outer shape design, it wouldn't really matter how they chop up something in different sub-assemblies or change connecting assembly points a bit to make it look different, it would still be a copy of that outer shape.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Stratospheremodels

[arnobiz]

What's your point exactly? In what sense are they shooting themselves in the foot? How is it different from what they did before? How does this affect any of us in any way?

[habu2]

I can see how a roomful of lawyers might make this argument, but I fail to see the difference in scanning an object by capturing the reflected laser light as data is really any different than a digital photograph. Maybe 3D technology can more readily input laser scanned objects but the underlying technology (converting light into ones and zeros) is essentially the same for digital photography.

[toadwbg]

I can see how a roomful of lawyers might make this argument, but I fail to see the difference in scanning an object by capturing the reflected laser light as data is really any different than a digital photograph. Maybe 3D technology can more readily input laser scanned objects but the underlying technology (converting light into ones and zeros) is essentially the same for digital photography.

I'm with you on this. A 3D scan does not a model kit make... It simply provides shape and profile accuracies that traditional photographs, line drawings, and tape measures did not do as well. Furthermore, a scaled-down 3D scan will result in details too fine that would not be manufacturable, so interpretation and engineering is required.

[MikeEM]

What's your point exactly? In what sense are they shooting themselves in the foot? How is it different from what they did before? How does this affect any of us in any way?

I too am confused at what exactly seems to be the issue.

Has there ever been a case where Company X sued Company Y for exactly copying their model kit and won the case due to some form of copyright infringement?

[ElectroSoldier]

Stratospheremodels.

What happens when a model company makes a scan of a real life object like a plane then prints it out.

Using that print as a basis of directions to make a "traditional" model that will be used to break up so as to make the moulds for the parts that will make up the kit?

3D scan > 3D print > model. This is known to be uncopyrightable as it isnt original work.

3D scan > 3D print > used as a guide to make another object > New object used to as a pattern to make moulds > kit produced from those moulds > copyrightable?

[Shadrik]

I can not be absolutely certain, but I doubt that the 3D Data from the scan is directely used to cut molds ect.

As far as I can tell the scan itself is used as a reference to create a clean mesh from scratch.

I think it serves the same purpose as a set of plans would.

[MoFo]

I can not be absolutely certain, but I doubt that the 3D Data from the scan is directely used to cut molds ect.

I can. It's not.

This whole thing is dumb, because the essay cited by the OP does not say this, and it is not how model manufacturing *or* 3D scanning works.

The essay (or at least this portion thereof), is about *directly* producing an item from a scan - if you scan a photograph and print it out, neither the print nor the digital file of that scan are copyrightable. That's it. In fact, footnote 11 makes it explicitly clear that this is *only* about the original scan:

11 Of course, if you scanned an object and then creatively altered the scan—not in a way to make the scan

more accurate, but rather in a way to embellish, distort, or change the object’s appearance—in a CAD program,

that new file could very well be eligible for copyright protection

Or to put it more simply, you can't copyright a copy of this:

But Warhol COULD copyright this:

[Stratospheremodels]

Hi Arnobiz, how this is different from what they did before is that now, if the choose to use this technology, they cannot claim a copyright to their own product. Case in point: Company X chooses to 3D scan a modern military aircraft, makes an injected mold and puts an injected plastic kit on the market. Plastic model kit company Y sees this, learns that company X used 3D scanning of a real aicraft to produce their kit, and knowing their job well, decides to target the product of company X as fair game, knowing that company X will not be able to win an argument in court against them (even more so if this happens in China, where copyright infringement is already particularly common).

Which means: big potential financial risk for company X who risks loosing its market if a competitor decides to copy "its" product designed from 3D scan data. They may have been lured with the idea that using the 3D scanning technology was going to save them lots of money in terms of time to design their product (note: this may not be true if the company in question is not familiar with HOW to use this technology correctly and effectively, based on the example i recently saw, this was not the case as a whole model had to be redesigned and "fit" manually a newly created mesh made with a CAD software into the point cloud data from the 3D scan in an attempt to match the outer envelope of the aircraft from the point cloud data. Basically reducing a high technology to a handicraft-like method... There is Good equipment and softwares out there to use this technology correctly, but it starts at 30-35K to approach the basic pro level of data one would need for such a job, and we are not even talking about the scanning itself, and the post-treatment and conversion. It is very expensive. Some of these guys however attempted to use an ordinary digital camera (photogrammetry) using a general public software (low quality data) and combine it with a laser scanner (most likely a low-end model combined with a low-end software, otherwise they would not have had to rebuild the whole aircraft with a CAD software inside the point-could outer envelope...). Which means you cannot get pro-results for peanuts in that field. And in any case, for their application, it would not have changed much for them since they will lose any claim to a copyright they might have thought they had on their model product in the first place, expensive equipment or not.

Hi Habu2,

Actually your post brings us to an interesting point: photography can already be used to do 3D scans, it is called photogrammetry.

Hi, MikeEM,

I don't know if there has ever been a case about this specific issue yet (a company sueing another one about copying their product that was produced with the use of 3D scanning data), but if there was such a case involving an accurate scale model for example, i think they would have lost their case.

Hi ElectroSoldier,

By traditional model do you mean a resin kit made with silicon molds ? In your 2nd example, one would have to know how much of a percentage of the final product will be based on 3D scan data. You might want to inquire about this with a lawyer if this is for a specific project as this might get more complex versus using 100% of the original shape that was scanned "as is" (meaning without changing the basic shape or design to incorporate it in another project where it will be a smaller part of another design).

Hi Shadrik,

You are right, the 3D scan data must be converted first into a mesh format which can then be used for the manufacturing method of your choice to make a physical product. Related to sets of plans, well, taking as example say an airliner, an aircraft that may have cost billions of dollars to develop. The problem with 3D scans is that once someone starts using it for the wrong purpose (piracy), then you may directly reverse-engineer the whole outer envelope of the aicraft, put it into a CFD software (computer fluid-dynamics software), and basically save millions of dollars in development cost if you want to copy the product of the other company. There are countries that don't mind copying whole Sukhoi Su-27 fighter aircrafts, right down to the last rivet. Just one example. They obviously do not own the copyright to the final product, but the original company (Sukhoi) is non too pleased, and so is Russia who are furious over this. In this case this is more power-play between super-powers, but in the more mundane world of miniature scale models, the "recaster" if you will would lose all claim to his copyright (which i must say is quite amusing, because the whole idea of using 3D scanning was to get supposedly "the most accurate product in the world", but ends up costing them their shirt if someone decides to copy their work, because now they can't protect it, but the irony is that what they did was piracy from the very beginning (according to what i have been told by a certain aircraft manufacturer in Europe).

In this case although the paper was referring to people who 3D print objects, however, like Shadrik remarked, 3D scanning data does NOT allow one to directly 3D print an object, the point cloud file have to be converted into a mesh (which can be a fairly involved process). However, once you have converted your point cloud obtained from your 3D scan, it is not only 3D printed objects that you can make, but also make injection molds (if you convert it to G-code), you can do reverse-engineering, etc. So what is explained in this paper not only does apply to 3D printed objects, but also does apply to a whole series of other uses of the 3D scan data to manufacture objects, including injection molds to make scale-model kits, copyright law still being the same no matter if you are talking about making 3D printing objects from it or making injection molds from the point cloud file obtained from 3D scanning.

(Note: suddenly i am thinking someone may have had a twisted idea: the reason why a certain company may have chosen to make a model created from 3D scan data and still end up with a visibly inaccurate model may have been related in part to what ElectroSolider was asking me: what if the company in question knew all about this, and decided that the only way they could still lay a claim on their model made from 3D scan data was to voluntarily add alterations to it to change its shape and then claim it is different (even if the changes now make the aircraft inaccurate... which, well... might be a good way of preserving a copyright claim on their product, but basically shoots them in the foot again, this time in terms of the hyper-accuracy this technology was supposed to bring to their product to wow modelers... (as it is obviously the aim here when a scale model company uses this technology: make things more accurate than other methods)(IF you know how to use this technology efficiently that is). But it seems that any way they try, this still ends up in a negative outcome for whoever might want to use 3D scans to create injected kits...).

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stratospheremodels

[niart17]

I still think you're missing the point. A model KIT goes WAY beyond just the outer shape of an object. Now whether a model kit is traditionally a copyright-able object or not I have no idea, some say they are some say they aren't. BUT making a 3D scan of an object isn't changing the fact that you still have to design parts breakdowns, sprue gates so those parts mold correctly, injector pin locations and various internal structure designs. Then you have to create molds based on that design. The outside shape of the aicraft at that point is a small fraction of the actual work. Having the outside skin shape of, say an aircraft scan, only insures that you have the outside shapes correct. It does not give you a model kit. In that regard it's no different than using photographs to ensure shape accuracy. It's simply a much easier and more accurate starting point. If you read the paragraph you posted, you'll notice what they are saying is that the scan FILE isn't copyright protected. It isn't talking about a product made from that file, simply the file itself.

That is in the cases of injection molded model kits. Resin aftermarket pieces are a different story. Someone designing a set of aircraft wheels for instance :whistle:/>/> that just scans the wheels and then 3D prints them can't claim infringement if someone does the same. They MAY have a claim if someone takes their printed wheels and then simply resin cast and sells them as a different company. That is where the laws start getting a lot murkier and something that I imagine we'll start seeing cases of come up eventually.

Bill

Edited May 26, 2016 by niart17

[sharkmouth]

Here is a link to a white paper about this issue (or is it more of a concer?):

http://www.shapeways.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/white-paper-3d-scanning-world-without-copyright.pdf

Regards,