Jee and Sohn (2018)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Jee and Sohn (2018)
Title: License choice in open 3D printing content community: Are current license options sufficient?
Author(s): Su Jung Jee, So Young Sohn
Year: 2018
Citation: Jee, S.J. and Sohn, S.Y. (2018) License choice in open 3D printing content community: Are current license options sufficient? Telematics and Informatics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.003
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study draws on data from Thingiverse (an online community for sharing 3D-printed content) to determine which licensing options are most prevalent in this area. As 95% of the content on Thingiverse are made available via Creative Commons licences (specifically CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-NC, or CC BY-NC-SA) other licence types are excluded (also excluding derivative works which presumably carry the same terms as the original work).

3D-printed content items in this database are categorised in the following manner: art, fashion, models, gadgets, tools, household, learning, toys and games, and hobby (acting as the independent variable). Other control variables include, printer passion (for the community), skill, and activity levels. The data is split into two groups, namely SA conditioned, and non-SA conditioned (anticipating different relationships between SA licences and non-SA licences).

Data Type: Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • January 2015 - August 2016
Funder(s):
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (2016R1A2A1A05005270)

Abstract

“3D printing content, which has been increasingly shared through the open communities over the last decade, has both aesthetic and functional features. There has been growing concern over whether current licensing policies provide sufficient options for contributors to the open communities. To suggest a direction for alternative license options, it is necessary to understand contributors’ license preferences for sharing diverse 3D printing content. Using a logit model based on information collected from Thingiverse, this study investigates the relationship between the various features of 3D printing content and contributors’ choices among the Creative Commons licenses currently available. The result indicates that preferences are clearly distinguished by the features of the content, whether the content is functional or non-functional in nature. However, there is no significant difference, in terms of license choice, for the numerous 3D printing content items that contain both functional and non-functional features. This result implies that there is a deficiency in the current licenses that cover 3D printing content. Implications for future license policies are discussed.”

Main Results of the Study

Authors of 3D-printed content prefer different licences depending on whether the content is purely functional (“gadgets”, “hobby” and “tool” categories) or aesthetic in nature (“art”); NC licences are preferred for the former, and non-NC licences for the latter. When content is both functional and non-functional, there is no demonstrable preference. Producers of educational materials also demonstrate a preference for non-NC licences, which may be driven by motivations specific to learning behaviours.

The study ascribes this difference due to the perceived value in ongoing contributions to a material when it is functional in nature (e.g. commentary on how it’s functionality can be improved). Conversely, any added value to artistic works is more limited to commentary or impressions (thus there is less private benefit through market responses).

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

New licences should be developed that adequately address both the functional and non-functional aspects of 3D-printed content. This may be achieved through a process of severability which reserves copyright only for the aesthetic components of the content, and incorporates either patent or utility model law for novel functionality.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets