Copyright Laws and Course Design

Impacts on Design, Delivery, and Material Selection

TDPT280-Section1: 3D Prototyping / Rapid Prototyping

Cale B. Rauch

Course: EDHI 699: Teaching Practicum

Professor: Dr. Thalia M. Mulvihill

Ball State University

05/03/2017

1
 Introduction
This is an assigned copyright law exploration paper to be submitted within a course
called EDHI699: Teaching Practicum. The goal of this exploration is to understand how
copyright laws will impact course design of a specified course being taught for the practicum
experience; therefore, the entirety of this paper will be told from the first person perspective of
the author. I am currently teaching a course called TDPT280: Rapid Prototyping / 3D
Prototyping at Ball State University (BSU). This course entails using seven different technologies
to create original models that represent methods of rapid prototyping (RP) in the industry. The
main objective is to assure the students take an inquiry approach to establishing technological
literacy through these technologies. The students are to create an academic project report -
including ample citations - with each model and explain their design, procedures, decisions, and
overall inquiry approach to the model, material, and machine. As the term rapid prototyping
may suggest, the students are to look at their quickly produced model, make decisions,
redesign if necessary, and re-make the object (again, rapidly) if necessary. The machines used in
the class are as follows: Laser Machines, Milling Machines, a Lathe, 3D Scanners, 3D Printers
(Fused Deposition Modelers), a Stereolithography Machine, and a Binder Jetting Machine.
While students are required to create their own designs and models, there are many times that
outside resources are used to help add substantiation or even validity to the model. For
instance, if the student is really interested in a copyrighted television series, what lines exist
which allow them to create a model related to this series? The 3D scanner mentioned before is
for the only project within the class that reverse engineers a product already in existence. What
copyright related limits exist for students to scan in models of pre-existing items? Each
machine, material, and project paper comes with their own sets of copyright related elements.
While copyright is the main element being explored, other elements of Intellectual
Property use will be mentioned such as but not limited to: Fair-use, the TEACH Act, Plagiarism,
Patents, and Derivative works. Each of these plays a large part in the course design of RP within
a state academic institution. Since copyright and this class need to work closely, the following
document will be split into parts representing major elements and issues of copyright within
RP, associated class projects, machines, materials, and overall goals in the RP laboratory at BSU.

2
 Definitions of Important Terms
Copyright: Provided by the constitution; an automatic protection of original design in tangible
form. ...provides six Exclusive Rights of the copyright owner. The copyright owner controls
these exclusive rights: Reproduction rights, Distribution rights, Public performance rights, Public
display rights, The right to allow derivative works, Moral rights (Section 106, Copyright Law).

Derivative Works: ...a work which is based upon one or more pre-existing works...states that a
work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications may
also constitute as derivative work (Katz, 1977).

Fair-Use: ...allows for the education use of someone elses copyrighted material without
having to get their permission to use it. The Law allows a limited use and these limitations are
defined by the Four Factors of Fair Use: Purpose, Nature, Amount, Effect (Section 107,
Copyright Law).

Patents: ...a grant by the state of exclusive rights for a limited time in respect of a new and
useful invention. These rights usually imply that, for a limited time, only the innovator, or a
person or entity licensed by the innovator, can sell products based on the invention. This offers
the innovator an opportunity to recover the investment needed to develop the invention into a
practical product (Herrling, 2007).

Plagiarism: ...submitting anything for credit in one course that has already been submitted for
credit in another course, or copying any part of someone elses intellectual work - their ideas
and/or words - published or unpublished, including that of other students, and portraying it as
ones own (Troy University Master Course Syllabus, 2016).

Rapid Prototyping: ...a type of prototyping in which emphasis on placed on developing

prototypes early in the develop process to permit early feedback and analysis (Burst et al,
1998). ...group of techniques used to quickly fabricate a scale model of a part of assembly
using three-dimensional computer-aided design (Spraggon & Bodolica, 2007).

The TEACH Act: ...is the latest attempt by the U.S. Congress to remedy the discrimination faced
by instructors and students in distance education (Ball State University, 2017).

3
 Rights of the Students
The Right to Patent
Students within the class come up with many original ideas that are patentable. I have
seen some work well and others flop completely in terms of their usability as a prototype;
however, this does not necessarily matter if the idea/design is very good. As an example, about
a year ago, one student created an item for fashion-design which made the sewing process
much easier. This item had never been thought-of before based on this students research, and
therefore they found themselves in a patent office shortly after. The prototype was a working
example; however, was made out of the incorrect materials - still making the model suitable for
the class a prototype. As a counter example, when I was an undergraduate student and taking
the RP class, I too found myself in a patent-office after making an original electronics-related
model for the class; however, mine was non-working due to limitations of the machinery and
material of the class laboratory. Both examples led to a successful patent being achieved even
though one had a working prototype and the other did not. Now that I have had the chance to
experience patenting elements of the class from a student- and teacher-perspective, I strive to
design the class to more efficiently give students an opportunity to work without worry of their
idea getting out further than the class. When the model is being made in the class and then
presented upon submission - there is a time-frame which the idea can get outside of the walls
of the university. A change that I made from the original class is that I do not require students
to present their work if they wish to keep it to themselves prior to submission for patenting or
related items. I also make an effort to inform students that this course is a great opportunity to
creatively prototype any original ideas they have ever had which may or may not be patentable.
While it may be true that students are given an automatic copyright to their original design
through constitutional rights, the idea itself is still vulnerable to taking - especially if the student
never goes to a patenting office to claim the design on paper or otherwise legally and others
do. Even if the student does not decide to pursue the patent, giving themselves a legal time-
frame to further develop their ideas if they wish could be detrimental to their lives later-on.
Each student deserves an equal chance at patenting their own original work through the RP
class if they research and find it to be profitable or otherwise increase the quality of life.

4
Reverse Engineering
One of the seven projects within the class gives the students an opportunity to take a
model that is already in existence and scan its 3D surface geometry to visually record that data
into computer simulation/rendering software. This project gives for very unique copyright
intensive instructions due to the fact that any model - like a Disney licensed toy seen as
intellectual property - could end up in the path of these scanning tools due to student-interest.
What makes this issue even more difficult is that most items that get put in front of the scanner
do not work due to their size, lack of rigidity, complex interior angles, fine surface textures,
shiny surface textures, or inability to keep in one place while being scanned. These severe
machine limitations cause many students to lean towards what is immediately available that
also works - which typically ends up being a copyrighted item of personal interest, like an
action-figure, manufactured model, or otherwise licensed design. Within the limitations listed
within the project instructions, students are immediately directed to use only original designs.
This causes a great impact to the materials used within the project at times - for example, clay
is a popular choice for an item to get scanned. Clay - especially dark gray modelers clay - works
well as an item to be scanned due to its surface texture, dark color, and ability to stay in one
place when being scanned. The most important and obvious aspect of using the clay is that
anything the student makes becomes an original design. Even if they design a Disney-related
item out of clay and scan it, the item and design can be considered a derivative work and
completely fair for submission to the class. There are some issues to using the clay that hinder
the inquiry being sought after in the students. For instance, those who use the clay miss out on
the chance to critically inquire about a product of their own design from the past - even outside
of the RP class - to be scanned by the machines. In my opinion, picking out an original item
which should or could be reverse engineered is much more intuitive than making a fresh item
from clay that will never be touched again. In a counter-example, some students may choose to
make an item from clay specifically to 3D-print the scanned item. For example, a student within
my class this year created a prototype of an original toy out of clay they invented to be
prototyped for future patenting. They followed up the scan with 3D-printing in order to have a
physical model that was not made of clay - therefore more durable and easier to demonstrate.
An example of this taking place for an item that was not clay includes a student within my class

5
this year decided to scan a broken interior car-lamp lens, fix it in the simulation software and
reprint it. In the future, I may take away the option to use clay in the hopes that the rigor for
the project goes up. I have to assure this is a fair choice due to the complicated nature of the
machines software. There is a chance that a student really has nothing but the clay option at
their disposal. To mend this, I may choose to have scanning be the final of the seven projects,
which gives students a chance to scan any of their other six original designs created throughout
the course. While the students will never be able to scan and submit copyrighted or licensed
scans, I hope to improve the quality of the project through changes related to what the
students are able to pick and how easily they can transfer this scanned model into something
usable later in life. In post-scanning, the students are instructed to add an image-map to the
scanned model in the simulation software before submission. The image being placed on the
model needs to be carefully picked by the students are they may be copyrighted. To mend this,
I teach the students that most image-search-engines have a filter which allows only fair-use
related pictures to come through - which can be mapped on the scanned model within the
simulation software and then submitted to the class for a grade as an original product. I still ask
the students to cite where the mapped pictures originated from to keep with the limitations of
fair-use. Since the limitations with fair-use can get very grey, I tend to tell my students to cite
everything no matter what just in case.
Plagiarism and Fair-Use
Keeping this part short - it is no surprise that plagiarism and fair-use play a big part in a
class where you are challenged to use unfamiliar machines to create original designs on the
spot. The class follows all guidelines put forth by BSU to prevent plagiarism such as including a
section directly on the syllabus which cautions students against designing/creating/replicating
ideas of another as their own original work. As a teacher I must look out for all elements of
plagiarism as shown by BSUs Faculty and Professional Personnel Handbook (Ball State
University, 2003). To help/guide the students, two links are given within the syllabus leading to
sources that thoroughly cover what plagiarism and breach of copyright or fair-use entails.
Furthermore, students are warned through in-class instruction, machine-manuals, and their
own student codebook accessible online (Ball State University, 2017). During design research,
and reporting - students are responsible for avoiding plagiarism and validating fair-use.

6
 Rights of the Teacher
Getting Information to Students
In the RP class, there are many outlets in which students receive information related to
the class. These include: in-class lectures/PowerPoints, online/Blackboard, handouts, machine
manuals, and one-on-one interactions with the machine. It needs to be noted that it is very
natural to learn more when working with a machine instead of hearing about it. When students
are taking place in their project and following the instruction of the manual - the students are
then subjected to citing the manual in their project report due to that being their primary
informational outlet. As the teacher who supplies these outlets, I have to decide what is
allowed in terms of citing direct quotations from the manual - otherwise the entire process
could be the manual copied onto a report with a citation at the end. In order to help students
develop their reported procedures, I ask and grade based on how well their procedures reflect
their overall design and model. If they need to include quotes from the manual, that is fine - but
it needs to reflect their overall design and product development - not necessarily a tutorial on
how to use the machine as what is located in the manuals. Although to build validity and
substantiation to their reports, students are asked to give direction as to how each machine
operates on a scientific level.
When students are learning direct content and working through their projects, many
online web-pages exist on Blackboard specifically for informational access. For instance, each of
the seven projects has an associated webpage on the class Blackboard. Each of these webpages
contain information about the machine, information about the project associated with the
machine, safety concerns / reminders, and links to the same manuals located next to each
machine. The students have the opportunity to cite this information safely; however, until the
TEACH act was initiated, this may have been more of an issue due to non-aligned use of
copyrighted information in terms of what is available on a web-page at a certain time based on
connection or data available at the time. The TEACH act does well the smooth the process of
having all of this information located online at all times and easily accessible for students to
use. Having this ability has been vital to the success of the course overall. As the TEACH act
stresses - having access to the information online gives students a chance to access the

7
information anywhere a computer is located (Dolak, 2001, Slide 10). This can be a big help to
students who need to write their reports for the class outside of the RP laboratory but still
require information about the procedures of the machine, properties of materials, or
limitations of the report itself. Migrating large portions of the course content - even including
PowerPoints and handouts - to Blackboard has impacted the course design to being a much
smoother process; additionally, being able to safely cite this information is needed for students.
Derivative works allowance
From what I have experienced as a student and as a teacher of the RP course is that
derivative works are one of the most popular choices when it comes to model design. This
essentially means the students create an original design based on something that interests
them like a TV series, business, band, or celebrity. As a teacher, these can get very grey in terms
of what should or should not be allowed to be submitted when referring to elements which
have copyrights or licensures attached to them. When evaluating student that work is
derivative work, I must keep in mind the six rights of copyright and especially the four
limitations of fair-use. If I can evaluate the model as a completely original design based on
these factors, the paper is accepted for submission. When it comes to 3D simulated work, this
acceptance can get complicated. For instance, a website called Thingiverse exists which is a
sharing site for models made in 3D simulation software. This site follows the fair-use act very
carefully through Creative Commons licensure and allows for the open sharing, distribution,
and editing of models available on the site (Thingiverse, 2016). The students in the RP course
are directed to never download anything from this site and submit it as a grade - as this violates
copyright. Students are allowed to use the site to gain ideas and insight into a model which they
may create themselves on 3D simulation software. Students are also allowed to download a
model and severely edit its original design into a new design that is completely of the RP
students design. I allow this to help students who may not be as good at working with 3D
simulation software. A student is not able to download a model, edit one item on the model,
call it original, and turn it in. This is where a grey area is created; however, upon my stipulation
that the design must look completely different than the original leaves no ambiguity in what I
am expecting in the design. Students are to create completely original designs which are still

8
allowed to be derivative works due to the fact that they are still learning about the material,
machine, and inquiry based approach to technological literacy. The goal is not to have a special,
pretty, or otherwise perfect model when finished; original, yes - but the underlying goal is to
have taken an inquiry-based approach to creating a RP model through academic decision-
making and finding sufficient / relevant information that is adequate to their design
development choices, operating / understanding the machine, and material decision-making to
create an original prototype.
Conclusion
For many students, especially myself - copyright is not the first thing one thinks about -
especially when entering collegiate establishments. It is true that students are well informed
and most could tell you basic rules of plagiarism and how not to infringe on copyright. It is not
uncommon to see that little c with a circle around it () or other variations of symbols that
represent legal-based owner-ship (,,). This RP course does well to expose the many ways
in which copyright can be infringed upon - especially when considering the 3D scanner and
many available resources for ideas and models online. I think that students have a much higher
chance of damaging their college career simply by taking this class - as it is much more prone to
accidental infringements and plagiarism. I also think that sends a message to us teachers of the
RP course whom need to further stress academic safety and how to keep to original designs.
When I teach this class in the future, I plan to design the course to be much more receptive and
responsive to any attempts at infringements or plagiarism. I could do this by asking for drafts of
report prior to submission. Additionally, I could feature a lesson at the beginning of the
semester which specializes in original design and all copyright related elements surrounding the
concept; the lesson could feature many portions of this document as major points to cover. I
think that there was not enough delivery of material regarding copyright infringement in the
past, and with the many aforementioned redesigns listed across this document - the course has
a better chance of seeing less academic issues and more original designs. The overall goal is the
same - to keep students informed about these issues in order to help them safely develop
original products that can help shape their understanding of technological literacy and RP as a
subject. Simply telling students about the consequences is not the way to go in this case.
Instead, the students should learn about the self-awarding nature of original research, design
and prototyping to help develop their understanding of copyright and its elements in RP.

9
 References (Informal APA)

Ball State University. (2003). Faculty and Professional Personnel Handbook, Academic Year
2003 - 2004. Sec. VIII. Student Academic Ethics Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.bsu.edu/it/media/pdf/fphandbook03-04.pdf

Ball State University. (2014). BSW Student Handbook, Academic Year 2016-2017. Sec. VII.
Student Academic Ethics Policy. Retrieved from
http://cms.bsu.edu/about/administrativeoffices/studentrights/policiesandprocedures/stu
dentcode/viiethicspolicy

Burst, A., Spitzer, M., Wolff, M., & Mller-Glaser, K. D. (1998). On code generation for rapid
prototyping using CDIF. Institute for Information Processing Technology, ITIV. Retrieved
from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.7710&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Copyright Act of 1976, 106, 17 U.S.C. 107-122. Retrieved from

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Copyright Act of 1976, 107, 17 U.S.C. 106-106A. Retrieved from

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Dolak, F. (2001). Complying with the TEACH act [PowerPoint slides]. Ball State University.
Retrieved from http://cms.bsu.edu/-
/media/www/departmentalcontent/library/copyright/powerpoints/teach_tutorial.ppt?la=
en

Herrling, P. (2007). Patent Sense. Outlook Neglected Diseases, 449(13), 174-175. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Herrling/publication/5988098_Patent_sense/li
nks/02e7e531f3baa0e34f000000.pdf

Katz, A. E. (1977). The general revision of the copyright law - from bare bones to corpulence - a
partial overview. Pepperdine Law Review, 4(2), 213-241. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2183&context=plr

Spraggon, M. & Bodolica, V. (2007). Knowledge creation process in small innovative hi-tech
firms. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC), 196-216. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/faa8/a542abd5f06411e665f039e619546058dad2.pdf

Thingiverse. (2016). Makerbot Terms of Use. Legal. Retrieved from

http://www.thingiverse.com/legal/terms

Troy University. (2016). Master Course Syllabus. Troy Online - MUS6630: Collaboration and
Inclusion. Retrieved from
https://etroy.troy.edu/Schedule/Syllabi/16T5/MUS_6630_XTIA.pdf

10