Everyone's WRONG about the BENCHY BAN! (Printables

[@eponinesg]

If any of you want Zack's shirt, it's from this Etsy seller: www.etsy.com/listing/1595887767/do-you-even-benchy-white-font-3d (Not sponsored/we don't know them, my sister just bought Zack's shirt here and gave it to him as a gift)

[@Caketurtle7]

Sigma Shirt

[@PanoptesDreams]

Since when have we been able to comment URL's? Mine always get removed, even if it's to another video.

[@UFJoy]

@@PanoptesDreams cuz u dont matter. welcome to the club

[@UFJoy]

damn, its on etsy. Im banned there and dont want to unban myself. Etsy is pure evil

[@PanoptesDreams]

@UFJoy I'm very well aware of the suppression on the platform. I'm one of those accounts that are marked to have all of my comments aggressively moderated. Even benign stuff is frequently removed. BTW when I tag you it deletes your name from my comment.

[@Meoiswa]

If you do manage to buy the rights to the Benchy, before making it available to the general public under any license, you should 3D Print the "World's Only Privately Owned Benchy" in some esoteric filament :)

[@SnareGG]

or 100 different filaments in 1 print?

[@blazingmatty123]

@@SnareGG go one further and do a different filament for every layer

[@consciouscode8150]

Why is buying it first necessary? Why not ask them to make it public domain themselves?

[@salmiakki5638]

@@consciouscode8150 so they don't have to think about it (read: spend internal lawyer man hours approving the change) and instead they marginally profit from selling it, would be my guess

[@incognitoideveloper9608]

​@consciouscode8150 i thinkwd the same but i if contries have difrent laws that may be a reson,example country a cant make anything public domain (i seen that in some countries owners just say that they WONT ENFORCE any rights to that work but they cant just abandon rights)

[@yvan2563]

"But then, in a phenomenon rarely witnessed in the 3D printing community, they got carried away."

[@YourBuddyDinec]

I don't think that's ever happened before! /s

[@Thoriumplatypus5263]

Oh no! Where to?

[@dirtdart81]

too damned funny :D

[@callsignapollo_]

I saw the first shots of the Cigarette Holder War. When it started, noone expected it to end in a literal casket of 9,000 cigarettes. Between that and the seemingly freudian obsession with phallus-ifiying every possible model, i'm pretty sure "getting carried away" is the default state of the community lmao

[@SylvieTheBagel]

@@callsignapollo_getting carried away is literally why this industry exists. Nobody ever stopped to think “this is good enough”

[@johannesviljoen9656]

"sell me the fucking boat" - zack freedman, 2025 (allegedly)

[@andrewmorris483]

Allegedly 2025, not the quote.

[@jaymzx0]

A boat is just a hole you throw plastic into

[@johannesviljoen9656]

@andrewmorris483 we arent questioning that he said that, he certainly did, we are questioning how long this video took to edit

[@Roobotics]

@@jaymzx0 A boathole

[@souptonuts]

Its 2075, Zack Freedman dies. His epitaph reads: "Here lies the only man in history ever to have bought a boat and not eventually lived to regret it in some way. #3DBenchy"

[@emaker1233]

This man is gonna leave such a void when he dies. The mirage's firmware. Hextraction. Gridfinity. and now the legal owner of the rights to the most popular 3D print.

[@keiyakins]

It's pretty easy to buy a boat and not regret it. Just get one small enough you can haul it out of the water at the end of the day :P

[@apollolux]

"DON'T buy a boat!" - RPG challenge runner Tantacles

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Zack will never die. He will just print new parts when they wear out.

[@mudawott]

NTI, Zack can be trusted with the benchy. Trust us. Hes willing to say his patreon names no matter how stupid, he follows through

[@Nevir202]

What does NTI mean? A Google didn't seem to turn up anything relevant.

[@JasminUwU]

​@@Nevir202 It's the company that currently owns the benchy

[@chonkusdonkus]

@@Nevir202 watch the first 30 seconds of the video again or read the video description...........

[@gloriouslumi]

@@Nevir202 Guess you didn't watch the video

[@nathanblanchard8897]

@@Nevir202NTI is the group that bought Creative Tools, the company that made the original benchy. Sorry that everyone was mean to you, you can try searching “NTI Group” and that should return the results you’re looking for.

[@stldenise]

Gotta stand up for myself, my friend. My Tom's Hardware report didn't say "DMCA takedown". I quoted the glitched out Benchy guy's Reddit post (who said the owners were sending lawyers) and I quoted Prusa who said they were working with NTI and looking for a way to keep the Benchy remixes up as transformative works. At the time of reporting, Prusa's team was saying the complaint came from NTI, and I had no reason to question Prusa Research.

[@802Garage]

Thanks for the added context. :)

[@jaymzx0]

Upvoting for the sake of argument.

[@justsomeguy8385]

My god, Tom's Hardware is still around?

[@stldenise]

@@justsomeguy8385alive & kicking

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Hmm, I feel like this should be the pinned comment, instead of the link to his t-shirt on Etsy.

[@kc579-w2u]

To be honest, making a benchmark tool "non derivative" kinda makes sense. You don't want someone (more likely a company) designing an easier-to-print benchy, and sneaking it into their 3d printer's free files, thus making their machine performs better than it should. So yea, I can accept the explanation that the benchy needs to be consistent to be valuable as a benchmark tool. Perhaps the license should be tweaked such that derivatives are allowed but cannot be published using only the "Benchy" name. Instead if it's like "Benchy parody" etc, it can be allowed because it will be obvious that it's different from the Benchy used for benchmarking. Afterall I love seeing how creative people can get with remixing Benchy.

[@KaitouKaiju]

But that also means the license giver can create benchy in a way that it works best on their own product, artificially inflating their own performance numbers at the expense of others.

[@john_hind]

Maybe follow Prusa's lead and have 'Original Benchy' as the inviolable benchmark?

[@kc579-w2u]

@@KaitouKaiju you raise a very good point. Disclaimer: I don't know much about the benchy other than printing them but I know alot more about benchmarking as one of the products in my portfolio in my previous company is a benchmark in my industry. Other than consistency, what makes a good benchmark is that it's impartial. A benchy that is developed by a 3d printer company is going to be much less desirable than a benchy that is developed by a company that doesn't make 3d printers.

[@jeffwells641]

​@@KaitouKaiju They can already do that. It changes nothing. In fact, this very thing is true of the original benchy, except they weren't selling printers.

[@TheEragoon]

Modified Benchy should be named "Not a Benchy" as a condition to modify it (in the license terms)

[@Serpent10i]

Thank you, good luck being the only person to ever pay for a benchy, lol. This was a fantastic deep dive! I'm so happy with my paertron subscription!

[@MichaelTavel]

Every time I heard "DCMA" in that creator's 'News Brief', my brain blue-screened.

[@spicybaguette7706]

It shows how much research he did into the manner😂

[@SnareGG]

that dude has no clue what a DMCA notice really is and showed himself to be a bullshit artist in the process, hilarious but also kinda sad

[@bobcousins4810]

What, you not heard of a DCMA downtake rquest?

[@1DwtEaUn]

you never heard of the Digital Copyright for Millennials Act?

[@capturedflame]

​@@1DwtEaUnisn't that what the DMCA was for? The US government taking Lars Ulrich's side over our generation because they were salty we were taking up half of global bandwidth to pirate pre Lars Ulrich Metallica discographies

[@nicksdjohnson]

I was not expecting to be convinced about the "benchy cannot be copyrighted" argument, but you make a persuasive point. As a designer of functional objects, it's an interesting realization to come to. Getting a design patent on every model seems implausible.

[@arthurmoore9488]

Thing is, until 20th century Copyright worked the same way! 200 years ago, copyright lasted only a few decades and required registration. I really want to see who got bribed to change those laws.

[@ashtonhoward5582]

​@@arthurmoore9488 I do know who did the bribing. Thanks, Walt Disney!

[@willofthemaker]

Honestly I think the logic is flawed. Just because something is functional does not mean it isnt creative nor does it mean it isnt copyrightable

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

​@@willofthemakerYeah, agreed, the model file is clearly a creative work that's been fixed in a "tangible" medium (copyright law recognises digital files as "tangible" as the term refers to a medium that can be used to exchange ideas rather than necessarily a physical artifact). The fact that it could *also* be protected by a design patent doesn't invalidate that (see also Disney extending the Mickey Mouse monopoly by incorporating him in his original form into a load of new trademarks, even though he was unambiguously under copyright he's now a trademark)

[@nicksdjohnson]

@@willofthemaker But as Zach points out, functional components are not copyrightable, and damn near the whole benchy is functional.

[@clb92]

"Danish conglomerate", you said, as you showed us their Swedish website full of Swedish text. This move angers the Swedes and Danes alike.

[@eponinesg]

I also nitpicked this. Apparently NTI is Danish but CT was Swedish, so the redirects from their old (Swedish) sites all go to the Swedish branch of NTI's site.

[@ericlotze7724]

Praxis.

[@tylercook7739]

USA USA USA!!!

[@radish6691]

Equal opportunity offender

[@DanGus-yh1bj]

@@tylercook7739I like that KZbin gives me a “translate to English” for this reply

[@VagabondTE]

Personally, I don't think the non-creative argument works because while all the features are functional the arrangement of those functions are fundamentally creative designs. Not to mention the infinite ways those individual features could have been portrayed. It's like game design. You can't copyright a game mechanic, like dice; but you can copyright expressions of those mechanics, like the symbols on that dice and their arrangement. The Benchy is not just a list of features. It is an arrangement of those features. That is design.

[@ZackFreedman]

I had to cut this part down, but I was told that arranging the tests in a boat-like configuration also has the practical benefit of reducing print time. I was surprised how many arguments there were for AND against a Benchy copyright.

[@icksbocks]

precisely. His reasoning doesn't hold any water imho.

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

​@@ZackFreedmanEven then it's still a creative work, even textbooks are subject to copyright and there's technical fact based reasons for every bit of content in them (in theory at least)

[@SnakebitSTI]

The idea that the benchy is not copyrightable seems like an argument that could potentially win if you threw enough money at a law firm to argue it. But that's different from saying that it's an interpretation that seems likely to hold up in court.

[@BobCat0]

@@ZackFreedman Copyright is automatic in the US. This comment is copyrighted, owned by me. KZbin has a license to put it on the site. They can't give others the right. The CREATORS of the bits and bytes that describe the Benchy owned the copyright, unless it was sold as an asset of the corporate merger. BTW, all those Buzzfeed lists and videos of Reddit comments are pure infringement. I'm waiting for someone to sue...

[@NanakiPL]

One thing of note. As a contract, Creative Commons has a built-in penalty for not complying with requirements (ie. breaching the contract): you automatically lose the license. So there's no need to sue for breaching the contract. And if you don't have a license, then the general copyright law kicks in. Situation becomes the same as if you reposted a STL file without permission.

[@Matt_Matthews]

Yes, but as you noted, this relies on copyright law kicking in and Zack's entire argument is that the Benchy cannot qualify for copyright protection.

[@SianaGearz]

@@Matt_Matthews This argument seems absurd. Just because every element of the benchy can be explained as a technical device, doesn't mean there is no creative merit to it, because if another person were to assemble all these same elements independently, they would most likely not create a cute version of a tugboat! So the overall composition of it into its shape is a creative decision. Furthermore if there is no copyright protection on it, then what was he going to purchase off NTI? Branding rights?

[@Matt_Matthews]

@ it's the premise of his video, not mine. That said, if he is asserting that Benchy can't be copyrighted but NTI asserts they have a copyright, the only way to resolve the disagreement is in court. I suppose his offer to by the rights to Benchy is a way to say, "forget the ambiguity, I'll pay you for your claim to the copyright and then release it out of copyright to sidestep the question." FWIW, I found the argument with the example of the chair (which I understand comes from actual legal precedent) to be compelling, but I'm not an attorney.

[@TurnerXei]

I think Zach misunderstands what the US Copyright Office means by copyrightable with its chair analogy. While the benchy's design might be covered under patents, the STL file itself would still be covered by copyright. Distributing or modifying the STL file against the license would be a contract violation like Zach says, but the actual STL file is still subject to copyright claims. However, there are no copyright claims made, so arguing about copyright is neither here nor there for this issue. If you want a real answer, ask an IP lawyer, which I'm surprised Zach didn't do.

[@SianaGearz]

@@TurnerXei Zach asked an IP lawyer he says at the end of the video, but i mean that seems like a pretty far out there view. Also your interpretation has issues as well. What about the STL per se is copyrightable? Is every vertex hand placed, is that's what under copyright? There is a fundamental question whether the item is creative or functional; my point of view is that it's got creative aspects about it that are likely copyright-protected. Machine generated data, data that is output of an algorithm, are not per se copyrightable. It needs to inherit copyrightability from some creative rather than technical action by a person.

[@m97120]

Mikolas from Printables also said on Reddit that they are in contact with NTI to get the license of the Benchy changed to allow remixing.

[@LoriAnneBrown]

In my 7 years of 3d printing, I have never even downloaded a benchy, let alone printed one.

[@Axodus]

Same, I thought it was a waste to print instead of literally anything else I want to print.

[@justinbanks2380]

@@LoriAnneBrown I thought I was the only one!

[@dtylerb]

Fear not, I've printed yours for you. I'm going to keep it though.

[@Axodus]

@ waste of plastic.

[@chrisparussin5359]

i think i downloaded my first benchy like 2 years ago. l’ve also been 3D printing since 2017. But i think i have printed thousands of calibration cubes 😂

[@Demo0606]

Scratch my brain talky man

[@davydatwood3158]

As a former law librarian I was all prepared to grumble about your basic misunderstanding of IP law.... but I must instead praise your succinct summary. Including the overview of the contract law elements, which hadn't even occurred to me. Well, I guess that thank-you goes to your lawyer, but still. Good job! Instead, I guess I'll have to point out that a "hawsepipe" is a very functional name - it's a pipe that a hawser passes through. :)

[@marian519]

But he has a (massive!) basic misunderstanding. He confuses copyrightability of the Benchy design with the copyright of the STL file. Even if the design can not be copyrighted (questionable), the STL file is absolutely protected by copyright, and that is what the license applies to.

[@Geeksmithing]

@@marian519 That is a fine distinction! It seemed like he ALMOST got there at one point in the video but then took a tangent.

[@Tome_Wyrm]

One thing Zack: "public domain" is... tricky. If you want it to be Public Domain you actually have to use something like the MIT license, because for example Germany's public domain framework is very particular. Personally I would do CC BY-SA 4.0 (Attribution and Share-alike). Which is "do what you want, just give credit to the original authors, and release that version under this license".

[@ZhilBear]

No, use CC0, that's literally the CC license made to be an alternative to Public Domain that works in more jurisdictions

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

​@@ZhilBearCC0 would be "something like the MIT licence", in that it's a specific licence that, at least for CC0, explicitly imparts all of the rights you would normally have to a public domain work. 8 think their mention of CC-BY-SA was more their personal preference for a default open licence than an equivalent to public domain (share alike is more robust in that derivative works and third party copies must also be accessible, CC0 means that downstream copies and derivatives can be released under restrictive licences, apart from the obvious this also means the original disappears from the public in the quite possible event that the original copy goes offline and only restrictively licenced ones are still available)

[@ZhilBear]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 Yup, I know all this, I actually publish my own licenses, but thanks for explaining it I guess? Not a fan of copyleft licenses personally, I like the more free licenses like MIT over ones like GPL, but I get it.

[@rustkitty]

Oh no, why would Josef Prusa incorporate in his home country?! Probably because incorporating in a different country from which you operate opens you up to a bunch of extra fees, more legal and accounting workload, increased chance of audits, possible double taxation, etc. The Czech Republic is already one of the more business friendly countries in the EU where many foreign companies choose to go when they want to operate in the EU. It's kind of strange to frame it like this was a weird eccentricity and not the default, most sensible thing for them to do just because it's inconvenient in this one very specific edge case.

[@sh1ku]

That was weirdly aggressive by Zack, but I think the point made here is that the most important thing of Printables is actually its users, so Prusa should have done the research into these things and figure out that maybe hosting the site in their country would not be the best idea. He's probably just extra memeing the bit for lols, though. That said, I agree with all of your points, and it's probably not as easy as just "hey host it somewhere else with REAL laws", which was kinda the message that was portrayed in the video, and sounded a bit rude in my opinion.

[@schtormm]

you gotta keep in mind Zack is an American, so he doesn't know EVERYTHING about the EU

[@rustkitty]

​@ "so Prusa should have done the research into these things and figure out that maybe hosting the site in their country would not be the best idea" I'm not sure about that either. We like the Benchy so it sucks that technically all these remixes are illegal. But I don't think being able to host license-violating content should be a major factor in deciding where to host your site or incorporate your company. Also the premise itself feels shady. Like we appreciate CC when it means we get free stuff, but ignore it when it becomes inconvenient.

[@psygonzo7974]

you now that was a joke, right?

[@MrHuggaga]

yeah it was kind of a cheap take..

[@johnb3513]

All this and you missed that breaking or violating a contract isn't "illegal" or a crime. It just opens you up to legal action from the other party in the contract which is 100% NOT the same thing as illegal.

[@blu_indi9333]

But he does. Lawsuits are civil, not criminal. Rewatch starting at the section titled Contract Law to the end. It is all civil.

[@bend.manevitz8261]

There are criminal implications to copyright law.

[@SnakebitSTI]

He didn't miss it. Why do you think he was throwing around words like "tortious"?

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

​@@bend.manevitz8261All laws are *eventually* backed up by criminal law but you have to work really, *really* hard to get a criminal penalty for a copyright infringement including pissing off a lot of law enforcement and judiciary staff

[@445588997]

Next video: Zack gets a Czech lawyer to explain Czech's copy write law.

[@m97120]

Regardless of whether CC license violations are copyright violations or breach of contract, 3D model hosting sites should make an effort to enforce the terms under which a designer chose to share their work. The 3D printing community and the consumer printer industry depends on the community sharing designs. Without that, 3D printers would be worthless appliances for the majority of printer owners, since the majority of people don't design their own models. And if the terms get violated left and right, people will eventually just stop contributing to the community.

[@logicalfundy]

Some copyright holders like to have some say in how closely a license needs to be followed. Sometimes they want it to be worded strictly to "cover my ass," but off the record they don't care so much. So in my opinion, it's usually good form to get some feedback from the copyright holder before taking enforcement steps.

[@SnakebitSTI]

Yeah, another way to spin this story is "Printables respects Creative Commons".

[@swe872]

@@SnakebitSTI No body ever blamed printables wdym

[@cladxylophone0524]

I've been waiting for a video on this. I've been seeing conflicting info, and I already heard that the "copyright owners" didn't know what was going on. I'm ready for a knowledge drop.

[@gn0st1c]

However, Henriette Tamasauskas, NTI’s Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), told 3D Printing Industry that “NTI has not taken any action to enforce the 3DBenchy license or taken any steps to have derivatives removed.” Instead, Prusa Research CMO Rudolf Krčmář confirmed that Printables has enforced the takedowns in response to a “third-party report.”

[@RADkate]

prusa just loves shooting themselves in the foot that much

[@TheMadComputerScientist1787]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, personally, but I think you did a fine job with this. Thanks for the effort. I print a lot of benchies, but only for the original purpose. I hope you get to buy Benchy's copyright for not too much money. You will certainly be providing a service to the community.

[@retronymph]

I do think it's unfortunate that this all happened because the original creators had no idea how popular the benchy would be. Their logic is entirely sound, if it's intended to be a benchmark, you should want it to be the same model every time. However they probably should have changed the license when it did become popular.

[@WyattMakes]

I have some experience with copyright from work. If a court had to answer the question, I think they would consider it a creative work because of the design choices themselves. A copyright evaluation considers each creative component of the work, not just the work in totality. Factors that make it a stress test (like what angles certain elements are at) are not creative components, but they can own anything that could remotely be considered creative choice (the fact it looks like a boat instead of a basic geometric shape, has port holes, a deck, etc). I believe benchy does have protected elements, but the protection is thin enough that if you made a knock off that fails the squint test you'd be OK.

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

IMHO the strongest protection (albeit it would be expensive to argue in court) for most derivatives would be fair use - since the original 3DBenchy was made as a benchmarking tool, and the vast majority of derivatives are memes that are intended for silly toys, they're very clearly transformative works with a different purpose that aren't competing with the original design, bonus points for the fact that the derivatives by and large don't turn a profit

[@patrick1020000]

The fact that the 3DBenchy looks like a boat is enough creative input for it to be a creative work. A human being used creativity to create the form of a boat. Its other characteristics do not take away from that.

[@chrisbruce9497]

Thank you. I felt like this video missed the mark in a big way. An object can be both a creative work and be patentable. It is automatically a creative work by virtue of its creation, and the fact that elements of its design might be patentable doesn’t take away from that.

[@marian519]

I agree, and, furthermore, even if the shape was 100% functional, the STL file would still be subject to copyright.

[@waylandsmith]

Agreed. This is a classic "forest for the trees" argument and feels like a D&D player engaging in rules-lawyering in to achieve an absurd outcome. Or even, if you would excuse the awful associations, a "sovereign citizen" who takes fragments of laws and legal opinions and without real understanding of them builds a case that gets them laughed out the court. If I wrote a short song that was intended to help a singer practice or warm up, even if every part of it was composed of individual musical elements that each have a specific, functional purpose, that does not mean the song isn't copyrightable.

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

Also, even entirely technical documents and designs can be copyrighted, there's tons and tons of entirely non fiction media that's under copyright. "Creative work" for the purposes of copyright is *way* broader than the common language understanding

[@malonewilliams]

shoutout to you and anybody else with the balls to Identify a problem, do the research and put their money where their mouth is providing a solution. Salute to you sir.

[@breen7771]

I took cyber ethics and law as part of my IT course and I had to do a whole chapter on copyright and patent law in the US. Thank you for explaining the difference and why it applies here. It's hard to explain to people and this video does a really good job.

[@frankhaugen]

Under Norwegian law, if some breach of contract has occurred for a long time, (more than months), and no party to the contract has protested, the contract has been modified. Reality supercedes contracts. Ex: supplier is always three weeks behind contracted schedule for production, if the contractor is paying the agreed amount for years, then there's no way to claim breach of contract at a future time. Same goes for a job contact, the paper signed might have some salary and obligations specified, but after 5 years of raises and promotion to middle management, you can't get "reset to contract" as the contract has been modified by reality. A very nifty concept, that makes it easier to do business as everything doesn't have to be written explicitly.

[@ygk3d]

Honored to make it in a Zack Freedman video. Too bad you cut the part when I said “or did they” then explained what actually happened 😝

[@mavmavermav]

Having watched your video I thought the same thing

[@radish6691]

Maybe just start with the facts instead of trying to be cute

[@ygk3d]

@@radish6691 you’re right. Benchy is serious business. No time to be cute.

[@radish6691]

@ygk3d Apparently it’s no time to be truthful either because in the description of your “truth about the benchy boycott” video you wrote “The rights have been sold to a large corporation and they're cracking down on license enforcement, removing all remixes from file sharing platforms like Printables and Thingiverse.”

[@ygk3d]

@ good catch. That should say “it appears”. Updated to correct that. The video contains the full story.

[@siberx4]

As somebody who has owned a 3D printer since 2011 and has, incredibly shockingly, somehow never ended up printing a benchy, this video was a great and refreshingly accurate summary of the situation. Thanks for clearing through the cruft and giving us the straight answers!

[@twinklingwater]

So Zack wants to buy the 3dbenchy - "for the community" - and everybody will pull a pikachu-face when he reveals his nefarious plan: Monetizing the thing. Everytime some poor printer spews out a boat-shaped hunk of plastic, Zack's boat-shaped hunk of steel, a.k.a. yacht, sails a bit closer to reality. Well played, sir, well played.

[@eponinesg]

Shhh stop exposing Zack's evil villain schemes

[@VagabondTE]

I fully expect him to keep it for a single day, make a video bragging about how he owns it, do a little dance, and then release it.

[@SnakebitSTI]

The big hole in that plan: The files are already available under the CC BY-ND 4.0 license, so there are already a lot of people with copies who are also licensed to share those copies.

[@ulaB]

Disclaimer: I am German, so I like to follow rules. I don't think this is related to any kind of law, ruling or whatever. This is simply a matter of following an original designer's written wish (as in license). If we don't follow those open source/hardware/whatever licenses ourselves, we can not complain about others doing the same. How are we going to stop companies from producing and selling our NC objects? It will render any CC contract useless.

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

Counterpoint - the original designers specified no derivatives for a specific reason and have been very clear on that reason - to keep the standardization of Benchy as a benchmark. The vast majority of derivatives are obvious changes that are clearly made as toys or even just 3D memes - there's no risk of them being mistaken for a true Benchy and muddling up benchmark results, and even more than that they would most likely fall under fair use since they're transformative (both in terms of design and, more importantly, purpose) and not for profit.

[@rafaelmarkos4489]

​@@bosstowndynamics5488An interesting point to ponder - does the benchy's role as a benchmark make a 'fair use' argument easier or harder?

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

@rafaelmarkos4489 I would say it makes it easier, since none of the derivatives that I'm aware of claim to be benchmarks and they all defeat at least one of the critical features designed for benchmarking purposes from the original design

[@lw8882]

I don't even 3d print. I just saw this 'controversy' posted by people who didn't really seem to know the particulars and find shit like this really interesting. Thanks for doing all this research and putting in so much effort. I know so many of your viewers will find it helpful from a practical standpoint, but I just enjoy the minutia.

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

He clearly did not understand the core of copyright law, as in what is actually copyrighted.

[@hecko-yes]

​@@FrodeBergetonNilsenthe attorney he talked to (19:41) disagrees ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

@@hecko-yes Right. Trump just talked to prime minister of Denmark, so everything Trump says, is now correct. Pretty much sums it up. You need to understand what an artistic expression is, comprehend it, then come back. The things he points to in his vid, is utterly and completely irrelevant for copyright. But you know this right? Right?

[@hecko-yes]

@@FrodeBergetonNilsen he specificially discussed this topic with him and didn't just talk to him about something else, you know what i meant either way czech republic so whatever

[@benjaminmiddaugh2729]

My understanding is that "public domain" and "condition of attribution" are mutually exclusive licensing terms. They might be almost the same (especially if the attribution is the only condition of the license), but in most jurisdictions that would be enough to preclude correct usage of the term public domain.

[@snitguckfung]

Not all jurisdicitons recognise public domain, so the responsible thing to do is to release it both to public domain AND provide a license that's functionally equivalent. It's also worth noting that public domain is for creative works, and he specifically notes that the license applies to COPYRIGHT (if it exists at all). It's a bit odd that he didn't provide a public domain-equivalent license, but also to be fair it doesn't hurt anyone to have to credit the person that made such a great model.

[@benjaminmiddaugh2729]

@@snitguckfung You make a good point. My point was simply that calling something that requires attribution "public domain" is explicitly NOT public domain in any legal sense I know of and is likely to perpetuate a longstanding, potentially problematic confusion. I have no problem with any potential attribution requirements, just with conflating them with public domain in any meaningful sense.

[@snitguckfung]

@ That's true, and I agree that the attribution requirement is not public doman. I just wanted to mention that technically the "public domain" and "attribution required" parts were two separate things, from what I understood. I admit though that it is pretty poorly worded, and I don't understand why he'd require attribution on copyright, when he had an entire section dedicated to why copyright most likely just doesn't apply here...

[@benjaminmiddaugh2729]

@snitguckfung If I remember his wording correctly, it was along the lines of "I promise to release it into the public domain... as long as people give attribution to the original authors." As to why a license requiring attribution, my guess would be to encourage people to cite their sources.

[@snitguckfung]

@@benjaminmiddaugh2729 The wording, exactly as I hear it, is: "If I gain ownership of the 3DBenchy, I promise to transfer the file to the public domain as expeditiously as possible, AND provide a blanket license for anyone to use any copyrights (which may or may not exist), on the condition that they thank the original authors." Notice how his mention of a license and copyright are in the same phrase, separate from the public domain promise. Again, the wording is vague, and I think both interpretations make sense, but I'm working under the assumption that everything after the "and" is meant to be one unit separate from the public domain part, especially because his intonation really emphasises the "and", serving as a delimiter, and everything after is basically said all in one breath, which I wouldn't expect if the "on the condition..." part applies to both before and after the "and". If that makes sense, lol.

[@Enjeenier]

You can say the good ol’ benchy is still afloat! 😂

[@TropicSpoon]

You beat me to it

[@whatr0]

12:05 considering how often false DMCA claims happen (particularly with a lot of Nintendo shit) I think it's fair to say the consequences are essentially nil and corporations would rather just take down whatever than actually verifying it granted KZbin is the worst and most blatant offender in this regard, especially considering they have plenty of cash to actually just y'know, have their legal department verify everything

[@Oshroth]

The problem with defending against a DMCA claim is that you have to have enough money to be able to defend it in court (and a big company is going to be able to throw more money at lawyers than you) and in the case of KZbin, a takedown claim doesn't count as actual DMCA claim (and therefore have repercussions for abuse) until several rounds of claims and counter claims are gone through, which is why DMCA trolls are so prevalent on YT. The process is something like: Copyright "owner" issues a takedown claim (causing the video to be taken down). Creator issues a counter claim. Owner has about 30 days to accept or reject the counter claim. If the counter claim is accepted (or the Owner doesn't respond in time) the video gets reinstated, but the creator still gets screwed by the algorithm because the video has lost all momentum) with effectively no penalty to the Owner. If the counter claim is rejected, then the Owner has to file a proper DMCA takedown against the creator

[@manicdan481]

Thank you for clearly covering the fact that functional designs are not protected by copyright and have to be patented. This is quite annoying when trying to design something and the only way to protect it is to file very expensive and time consuming patent applications. I wish there was a more open protection that is offered for works of art to works of design.

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

A functional design might not but a specific instantiation of that design often can be, and Benchy derivatives aren't (typically) clean slate rebuilds, they're modifications of the initial STL, so even if you specify that Benchy is a purely functional design (which many of us would dispute), those models would still be in the territory of copyright. Having said that, I think most of the derivatives are comfortably fair use since they're almost never intended for benchmarking (making them transformative works), but fair use of a copyrighted work is very different to being unable to copyright a functional design.

[@jsalsman]

The 13:00-ish argument would suggest program code can't be copyrighted. Sorry. Purely utilitarian "tangible" expressive content is absolutely subject to copyright.

[@KaitouKaiju]

Program code can be copyrighted, but you can't copyright the function. If you write hello world one way and I'll write a hello world in another way. My hello world does not infringe on yours even though they accomplish the same task.

[@lakevna]

​@@KaitouKaiju correct, in this case that means building a new "benchy-like" from the ground up, rather than deriving from the original model.

[@jsalsman]

@ sadly, what is and is not a derivative work is the most byzantine and subjective part of copyright law. Transformative fair use is much easier, including in this case, but only applies in the US.

[@lakevna]

@@jsalsman fair dealing exists in all commonwealth jurisdictions as well as a few others, though as in all things the US variant is remarkably more liberal in it's application. Nor are these the only exceptions to copyright, such as the Berne convention for preservation of artistic merit, though this one is unlikely to cover derivatives, just backing up the .stl

[@TS_Mind_Swept]

Not sure what'll happen, but the idea of Zach owning the 3D benchy model just sounds cool to me :p

[@bwilliams18]

The Creatives Commons license derives the maker's legal authority to license the use of their creation from copyright. Creative Commons can't be applied to uncopywritable works.

[@zapl80]

Yep simply out, there's nothing you can offer in a contract / license If you don't own anything. Same way you can't hand out permissions to walk a path that isn't on your property.

[@marian519]

Even if the Benchy was not copyrightable (it is IMO), any CAD drawing or STL file is copyrightable. I think Zack misunderstood this part.

[@gerwen1]

I don't think there's another youtuber who is so consistently funny, clever, concise, informative, and information dense. You do excellent work! I thank you for your hard work.

[@elitecpudoc329]

I had questioned the DCMA line when I had first heard about the benchy problem, and was so confused why they said it was copyright infringement vs contract breaking. Thank you for not continuing the over sensationalizing the issue and breaking down the misinformed into the crux of the situation while ultimately ending with a call to action! I've got my popcorn out just waiting to see how this plays out!

[@post-humanentity8206]

Any time I watch your video, I am amazed at how well can complicated, technical content be written.

[@K3NnY_G]

Favorite thing about the Benchy is those people online who tout some BS of "I've never printed a benchy." "I'll never print a benchy" "This printer has never printed a benchy." ... So dumb.

[@-Nicetomeetyou]

Got my 3D printer in 2021 and I didn't print one until end of 2024 cause I used the Matterhackers astronaut instead. Don't get why not printing a benchy is considered bs.

[@mantx7152]

​@@-NicetomeetyouBecause practically no one uses the astronaut

[@evanbarnes9984]

I've only printed one benchy and I'm probably going to keep it that way. I'm not really interested in ultra fine tuning filaments or print speed, my printers are just tools for prototyping. But I love the elegance of putting all the hard to print features into a single model that is also cute and appreciate its purpose. But there's a happy medium I think, and I think a lot of people print too many benchies. Personally I think most benchy prints fall into the same category as flex dragons and Iron Man masks: kind of a waste of filament and a powerful tool. Like overall yes, print whatever you want, but there's a lot of 3D printing that gets done that feels analogous to the idea of downloading a PDF of a novel, printing it on a laser printer, and then being like, "look, I'm a book-maker!"

[@evanbarnes9984]

​@@mantx7152that doesn't matter, Benchy is just a benchmark. If you're not doing the speedboat challenges, it doesn't matter at all if you use a different benchmark than other people.

[@RF-Ataraxia]

50/50, I think. You're usually expected to print a Benchy because of its function and all, but aren't there several other calibration prints you can do as well? The way I see it, the thing most test models don't have against Benchy is that they're all mostly practical and expected to be thrown away immediately, unlike this little boat that's cute enough to hang around for a little longer ...but then again, I agree that it is kinda weird when they make it sound like they're proud of not having printed even one.

[@souptonuts]

As one of the few YT subscribers here without a 3d printer but with a job that intersects technology and IP law I found this video every bit as engaging as the others. Looking forward to a dissection of the latest Bambu Lab fiasco tbh. Keep up the good work.

[@ericlotze7724]

Getting @LegalEagle to cover this too may be neat lol, raise hell y’all !

[@callsignapollo_]

I prefer Leonard French, who specializes in copyright law, and has already made a video about it. Not as big of a name, but someone whose entire career revolves primarily around situations like this seems like the person best equipped to speak on it, even without the same star power as Devon.

[@cowabungacreation]

I would be totally down for when you buy the rights to the benchy if you called it a Free’d-boat…bit of a stretch, but it rolls off the tongue like silky smooth butter…side note I think the butter in my fridge has gone bad since it has the consistency of silk 😅

[@davidgriffin9247]

What's the speed run time for "new printer in box to printed benchy"?

[@TheLukemcdaniel]

I work for a webhost. If they don't take the offending material down, we suspend their account. Then if they still refuse to(or they're a repeat offender and the ONLY thing they host is breaking someone else's copyright) we can terminate. We don't remove their content unless they specifically request help with that.

[@CDRaff]

30:11 That's the issue though isn't it? Like the core of the issue is that CC licensing isn't respected in any way shape or form and at the end of the day as a community we're going to have to rectify this. If the community had respected the license for the Benchy than we would have picked some other object to meme to hell and back and we would have never run into this issue in the first place. It's not hard to adhere to a CC license, and honestly if people can't do it then maybe sites like Printables should do it for them.

[@SnakebitSTI]

As mentioned in the video, this would be a very different story if formal copyright claims had been filed. Asking content hosts to extralegally enforce copyright law has serious implications.

[@CDRaff]

@@SnakebitSTI My comment has nothing to do with copyright. Creative Commons are a copyleft, or a replacement/stand in for the framework of copyright which in it's strictest legal definition doesn't allow for derivatives without individual licensing. Copylefts seek to right this and will only effectively work if they are community enforced. Again these licenses are NOT difficult to follow and it would behoove the community in the long run to actually at least try to adhere to them before some government body forces the community to adhere to more strict licensing arrangements; something we have seen in multiple communities that grew around media sharing(with each community telling itself that it was for sure the safe one).

[@SnakebitSTI]

@@CDRaff "Creative Commons licenses give everyone from individual creators to large institutions a standardized way to grant the public permission to use their creative work under copyright law." Taken from the Creative Commons website's description of their licenses. CC licenses are copyright licenses, which are written to be enforceable under copyright law.

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

​​@@SnakebitSTIIt's not extralegal enforcement by Printables though, if they were headquartered in the US then Printables would have a constitutional right to voluntarily remove Benchy if they chose to (the first amendment includes a provision that no person can be forced to express speech they don't want to, which includes companies not being forced to host content against their will). I'm sure equivalent rights exist in the EU as well (and notably Printables isn't attempting any measures to try and penalise people for hosting Benchy derivatives elsewhere - they've purely chosen not to host them themselves under threat of legal action)

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

Personally I'm not convinced that most of these models violate the licence anyway - if Benchy falls under copyright law (and I think on balance of the evidence it almost certainly does, loads of technical materials do when discussing a specific example composite design, and it's been well tested that you can create a copyrightable work out of parts that are each in and of themselves not copyrightable) then it's also subject to fair use, and while I'm not a lawyer I think there's a *very* strong case that the meme derivatives are fair use, in no small part because they're *obviously* not trying to portray themselves as a way to run the original Benchy benchmark. Fair use supersedes licence restrictions because you don't need the licence at all to use the work

[@personwhohasnoname]

Thank you for this coverage, I watched the whole kerfuffle and a lot of it seemed to be outrage bait and trying to get content out asap, so respect for waiting and actually providing fact checked information. I do want to call out Lawful Masses, he discussed it and while he didn't get into the contract law aspect (from memory) he did note that it did not seem to be a DCMA issue, his conclusion was the company reducing their legal risk.

[@number1eclipse]

Thanks for the video Zack, it has been quite frustrating seeing that most people are just trying to fan the fires!

[@fish9468]

you commented 5 minutes after a 30 minute video is posted. How do you even know the conclusion of the vid lmao

[@number1eclipse]

Carefully

[@JepdT]

Don't care what the subject of your program is on any given day, they're just plain enjoyable! Thank you for all the work you put into your channel.

[@shayes.x]

D.C.M.A. 🔥

[@gchristnacht]

🔥🔥🔥

[@Pickelhaube808]

the newest party drug to hit the legal scene

[@johannesviljoen9656]

D.M.C.A, the people who made those figures for TF2

[@ecliptix1]

Dichloromethane+Acetone, the hottest new solvent mix

[@sergeantsapient]

I'm surprised you went with this and not the Bambu Labs fiasco. Regardless, excellent video. I had only tangentially kept up with the Benchy story and I felt like things were being blown out of proportion since NTI didn't really seem to be acting all that aggressive about their copyright. Thank you for the very concise breakdown of the situation.

[@AZREDFERN]

I hate speed print flexing because what they’re entirely useless. Like claiming you wrote an entire 2000 page novel by holding the Q key. The Speed Boat races should have requirements. Like not looking horrible, being water tight after 30 minutes at 1 meter submersion, a list of tolerances that must be met, an exact weight per filament type, a tinsel strength test between the roof and hull, and a crush test from the bow to stern. Basically, whatever strength an absolutely perfect print can achieve for a specific filament, it should at least make half that. Otherwise, what’s the point of speed printing if none of it is usable?

[@marsrover001]

"recognizable as a benchy" is the only requirement. Going fast is hard enough, and by putting requirements like that it really limits pushing the max speed (which is the whole point anyway, the boat is just the agreed upon distance of the race)

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

​@@marsrover001Sure, but lots of races have additional requirements. You can't just run around the hurdles in a hurdle race for instance, even though you'd broadly be recognised as running, you have to actually clear the hurdles. Having some basic standard as to what "recognisable as a Benchy" means would be pretty reasonable

[@Dr_Axton]

aside from being a good material tester, it's also a good way to see how a different colours look like on different parts of the benchy. I eventually ended up making a gridfinity holder for these boats and use it as a colour palette. When someone asks me to print something showing a printed model gives a better example than a small coloured square. Also a good display for extra options I can add like adaptive layers or fuzzy skin (my beloved)

[@RocketBurn11]

The Benchy debate is a diversion to get attention off Bambu preventing users from using their printers how they want. 👀

[@Ravnican127]

You mean the idiotic rage from people who can't comprehend basic internet security? How dare a company push an update that stops a security vulnerability while connecting to their cloud system, and stop vulnerable machines from accessing their cloud system until they download the patch.

[@RocketBurn11]

@Ravnican127 If you haven't looked into it that's fine, but you can't call everyone idiots and ignore how poorly they're "fixing a problem" if that's how you want to frame it.

[@Ravnican127]

@RocketBurn11 if by "look into it" you mean watching the 20+ minute videos from rage bait youtubers telling everyone the sky is falling, no I have not. I got the info that Bambu provided, reviewed it, and carried on with my life. Please explain how they could have handled this any better than pushing out a patch. Yes, it broke 3rd party resources. But they are actively working on a system to bring that compatibility back. This is just the latest "Bambu bad" nothingburger. First it was the closed ecosystem, and that you wouldn't be able to get parts. Then it was that the parts were going to be overpriced. Then it was that they were going to force you to use their filament. And literally none of it has happened yet.

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

​​@@Ravnican127Multiple issues with this: a) the update significantly worsens the user experience of using the printer b) the update doesn't address any specific security flaw c) the method chosen by Bambu is not even close to the only way to mitigate security flaws on networked devices d) Bambu's encryption was so poorly implemented that the keys were extracted from Bambu Connect within hours of it being published - their new "security" was broken before most people even got the update Connect was a PR stunt that backfired catastrophically, not an actually meaningful improvement in security. The fact that there was ragebait doesn't somehow negate the massive amount of well reasoned and specific criticism directed at the update. Taking a business at their word while deliberately ignoring independent criticism when that business does something that harms you is a great way to get screwed over on the regular.

[@callsignapollo_]

​@Ravnican127 "i only listened to bambu and ignored everything else so its fine actually" is on the same level as "we investigated ourselves and found ourselves innocent" It took a hacktivist sending a message to all bambu printers connected to the cloud for bambu to even acknowledge there was a problem, after it had been known about for a while before their printers had been released to the public. So yeah, you actually should listen to someone besides bambu's press releases.

[@bazzatron9482]

You know, for a video that ranks on a dryness scale of freshly dried PETG to "help my house is full of water and I gotta buy a new one real quick", this is definitely approaching 0% humidity - but this video is also super important to the printing community, and contains some god damn iconic lines. I hope they sell you the boat.

[@magma2050]

Funny how millions of people modifying a model's geometry remains illegal regardless of how little the originators care to challenge it, but enough people using a trademarked name to describe products not made by the trademark owner causes the name to become genericised and unenforceable.

[@KaitouKaiju]

Trademark, copyright, and patent are all different

[@BenKadel]

I absolutely flipping love your comedy style my dude! thank you for your amazing (high effort, well edited, brilliantly scripted) videos that genuinely make me laugh out loud!

[@JD-lx2yf]

Fun fact about the Benchy that I heard on a Tom Scott Podcast. Benchy holds the world record for the most produced/manufactured product in the world.

[@JohnDavidParsons]

I would have guessed ball bearings

[@JD-lx2yf]

@@JohnDavidParsons Sorry need to clarify. This is an estimation based on a research study, and Genius hasn't made it official or anything. Ball Bearings could most easily be proven, and would make sense, whereas with 3D printing testing this would be a bit of a challenge

[@KateNesD]

I haven’t listened to that podcast but I’m super skeptical. Any number of things like nails, screws, or plastic soda bottles are probably massively more produced than Benchies. Maybe there were some caveats or something. I’d believe it would be on top for most unique manufacturers of an item.

[@KaitouKaiju]

​@@KateNesDI guess it really depends because for example you might have nails made in entirely different ways and each is a different product. As opposed to benchy which is the same benchy minus all the remixes of course

[@Geeksmithing]

probably the MOSFET transistor

[@cynic5581]

I’m happy to see the only 3D printing channels I subscribe to have reported this story more accurately than the 3D printing drama channels.

[@kitsonswann5088]

I somehow learned more about intellectual property from this video than I have ever known before.

[@LordKerry]

Proud to say I have NEVER printed any

[@AntiVectorTV]

Let the benchy derivatives be free! They don't impact the original Benchy, no one's trying to sell them, and they aren't hurting anybody. If they breach a contract, _amend that contract._

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

No. They could release a derivate, different from the original, require you to state that is a remix and credit the original. But they should protect the bench itself. Why is this so hard to understand?

[@Octahedran]

@@FrodeBergetonNilsen so you mean just a standard attribution license, i don't think anyone is arguing against the benchy having one of those

[@lmaoroflcopter]

​@@OctahedranI think anyone arguing anything about the benchy and it's licence terms needs their entitlement checked. If the author has selected a licence, they have selected a licence.

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

@@Octahedran Still hard to understand? People are arguing that CC licenses are invalid and you might break them if you want to. People ARE arguing that this is NOT licensed work, because they are anarchist. Even in this very vid. There is a lot of creativity going on with the Benchy, and the copyright holder could decide to honor that creativity. If they feel like it. But given how rude this crowd is, I probably wouldn't myself. The disrespect and abuse is just ridiculous. When this crowd is called out for it, it whines and cries. It is toxic.

[@Octahedran]

@ Apparently, Explain to me in very clear words what you mean. Is all your saying that you think people should be able to modify the Benchy but the Benchy itself is subject to the the laws it currently is?

[@mpldr_]

As a programmer I fully approve of nti doing it. License compliance is of great importance in the Open Source community and the Benchy makers can simply decide to relicense the model.

[@MikeyMobes]

pH can in fact be negative. It just means something is so acidic it kind of, in a way, “breaks” the scale we use to quantify acidity.

[@joruffin]

If you do get the rights, please, please, please don't use the public domain. CC 0 is an almost equivalent contract, enforceable by treaties and convention around the world, where the public domain barely exists outside the US or in it.

[@Its-Just-Zip]

Zack, Instead of the public domain, may I recommend one of the other Creative Commons licenses, the issue being that the concept of the public domain does not exist in all countries and would not hold force in those countries and they would likely default to the old license. You might reach out to your law friend that you passed this video by originally to get their opinion as to what license to transfer it to. That or using the MIT or one of the GPL licenses.

[@kaytrim]

Zach, even though this is not your normal content it was still informative and entertaining. Thank you for taking the time and effort to try to set the record straight.

[@cfillion]

Can't NTI just put it on the public domain (or remove the no-derivative clause) themselves? No need to buy it from them first...

[@eponinesg]

They can!

[@lmaoroflcopter]

Would you? Once the world has put you on blast for something you've not done? I wouldn't. I'd leave it as is.

[@cfillion]

@@lmaoroflcopter Yes I would? Feedback generally leads to positive action being taken. For instance, when users publicly complain of an issue in my projects, I fix the problem, not leave it as-is out of spite. That'd be ridiculous.

[@lmaoroflcopter]

@cfillion If someone has a contrarian opinion to how you should licence your own work, you'd change it, even if it goes against what you intended? Yeah, nah, I have a backbone, and the 3d printing community has hypocrisy running rampant through it. It's licenced ND for an explicit reason. The fact that the 3d print community chose to ignore the licence doesn't make it the correct side of history here. In fact, given those licences are the very thing that "protects" the 3d print community's designs, it's hypocritical that it would suggest such a thing.

[@cfillion]

@ I'd consider it like any other bug report or feature request. Past decisions are not set in stone. Time passes, circumstances changes, mistakes happen. Benchy's authors might have had good reasons for choosing ND 10 years ago. The new owner might not be bound to that ancient decision and might not share the same goals. Only they can tell. I agree on the community violating the current license being wrong.

[@chrisj3938]

This was way more informative about copyright and license law than anything else I've watched on the subject

[@m97120]

i think it's relevant to mention that Printables (themselves, under their own account) had initially re-published the Benchy under the wrong license (without ND clause) and they left it like that for years, leading users to falsely believe that the Benchy can actually be remixed.

[@jawaulk]

Thanks. Finally a thought out video on the Benchy situation instead of another hot take. Would love to see them sell the rights to you.

[@M4dM1ke]

Wooohoooo, New Video ❤️

[@ZenMuff1n]

Fantastic video. Thank you for your work. I was under impression that Benchy was like a lot of other things that went viral "Yeah, someone has a license, but it's an internationally beloved thing, so they are not doing anything about it." But the articles and mentions of dmca's got me totally confused, plus people who only have half the story or barely any knowledge chip in and it became very confusing to tell who is right or wrong. Anywho. Thanks again.

[@callysibben416]

I think you make a great argument for Benchy not qualifying for a copyright

[@cheweh842]

Hell yeah, I unironically love hearing more about the particulars of how IP law ends up making things so messed up. Most people today it seems are learning that (music || movie || anything else you can download that a big company made) == copyrighted == you can't use it. And that's BS, and I want things to change (people to actually understand the stuff and then know how to assert themselves and then to change the laws).

[@nikwoac]

I guess I never expected a 3D printing-adjacent tech/comedy KZbinr to actually be super based, but here we are. Bravo, good sir.

[@dfgaJK]

But the CC-BY-ND 4.0 licence makes sense... I don't want derivatives of a calibration standard!

[@eduardog3000]

Derivatives don’t devalue the original’s existence as a calibration standard. The derivatives are creative works purely for fun. No one is trying to calibrate their 3D printer with mkrjoe’s glitched benchy. And even if they were, they’d be doing it despite the original’s status as a community standard, but that status would still hold.

[@ulaB]

@@eduardog3000 Unless someone designs an imperial Benchy with slightly different dimensions or similar. It was not just about glitched or air carrier Benchies.

[@AaronJohnsonSTL]

@@ulaB Now I want to see a fully 'Merican Benchy.

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

Sure. But they can protect the original, and release a different model, that may be remixed with attribution. That would still retain the original, and allow for fun derivates. But no remix could ever claim to be the benchmark, because it is protected. For instance, the remix allowed version could remove the writing on the bottom and the back. That would still not prevent people from trying to add the text back onto it, but they would be required to credit their remix as a remix of the non bench model. This is kind of what is needed, but in the end, a ton of people would simply not care, and would simply and blatantly violate anything they can. They would rant like in this vid. That is why, few great designers work in this industry, and this is the core reason this very industry is struggling.

[@Octahedran]

@ No denying that people simply wouldn't care, though I would say that more people would respect attribution if it was actually in the license in the first place. Making it so that it actually somewhat improves it as a standard since you could find a link to the original on more Benchy variations listings

[@phillipdennick8509]

I put together my first ever 3D printer this morning. It had a memory card with it. I put the card in and ran the test sequence. It auto levelled then made a Benchy. I didn't have to click on anything except the test print file.

[@popeter]

now i want a legal eagle benchy

[@Lucretiel]

I just wanted to jump in and say I LOVED this video. I was worried about the length but I found it super informative, learned some stuff about the difference between copyright and patents, and also found that the jokes in it were some of your best

[@TropicSpoon]

Some mf took the pun i was gonna say

[@Geeksmithing]

Son of a bench!

[@TropicSpoon]

@@Geeksmithing I guess he boat me to it

[@Geeksmithing]

@@TropicSpoon I cannot possibly fathom how.

[@shanematthews1985]

Is the benchy actually that good of a benchmark anymore now that pretty much anything taken straight off the shelf can print these with ease now?

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

The fact that there's prebuilt and pre calibrated printers for sale doesn't delete the need to have tests for 3D printing, particularly for the people designing and validating the prototypes that subsequently get developed into those ready to go 3D printers

[@danielkarner7118]

calls EU beta and USA alpha has elected an orange criminal to president twice

[@jono_church]

Thanks for taking the time to break this down so well, all the other coverage was awful clickbait and clearly didnt bother to get the full story!

[@rodgerbright3764]

Zach, thanks so much for this video. One of my favorite on your channel. I love your breakdown, your attention to detail, and I really hope you can become the owner of the 3-D benchy license.also love the throwing in some Yiddish!

[@mdmk]

I love this blend of wacky Zach and serious Zach. More detailed insightful videos like this please!

[@RuiVascoMonteiro]

That Letterkenny "DarkWeb" reference always gets me! ❤

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

DMCA isn't the only way to take down copyrighted works - many websites have ways to notify the host of a suspected copyright infringement that they may choose to *voluntarily* act on, most famously KZbin (the vast majority of YT copyright takedowns aren't done through DMCA). There's also other means like a cease and desist. The purpose of the DMCA is to provide a means to *force* the takedown of a copyrighted work in a streamlined manner while at least having some means of fighting back

[@_Mackan]

Love how the page at 0:28 is in Swedish when it's a danish conpany lmao

[@forbiddenera]

Thanks for saying this stuff, this happens everywhere. Big company says roar, people run and hide.

[@michaelhooper9576]

Gridfinity was way more influential than the Benchy, your generosity is amazing.

[@foggofed9163]

This is exactly the kind of video this situation needed. Thanks! Also, chad move offering to buy the benchy to throw it in the CC.

[@alexpick518]

I’m going to do the classic internet thing, where a tiny itty bitty nitpick is what I comment on. Sailors have weird names for everything, but they also shorten everything. The word “bowline” is pronounced “boh-lin” (close to how they say Bolin the legend of korra). In the same way, “Gunwale” is shortened to be pronounced “gunnel.”