Jee and Sohn (2018)
|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|
|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|
|Key Related Studies:|
|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:|
|Cross Country Study?:||No|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
“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.