INVENTION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & BUSINESS

JILL HARTLEY YOKOTA, AS220 FAB LAB, PROVIDENCE, RI

ASSIGNMENT: Develop a plan for dissemination of your final project. Create and document a license for your final project.

DISSEMINATION OF GLOWHOUSE

My initial intentions were to make a children's furniture product that could be customized and sold over the internet and flat pack shipped to the final destination. Given the weight of GlowHouse and the high cost of shipping heavy objects (there's a reason why Ikea doesn't do this!), I am considering open source furniture options, such as Open Desk, which is a "global platform for local making" and is focused primarily on work place furniture, but may evolve into other kinds of furniture as noted on their site. The Open Desk business model is interesting and attempts to create a win:win scenario for all - consumer, designer and local makers.

As a consumer, one has three options:

    1. Work with Open Desk to make a kit of the furniture desired.

    2. Download Open Desk designs and work with a local registered maker, who will quote the job and include a royalty percentage, which is dictated by the desiger.

    3. DIY for non-commercial/commercial use depending upon the terms the designer has defined.

The designer retains their own brand, sets pricing, has an opportunity to distribute work globally and controls the terms under which a design can be downloaded, manufactured and used. The designer sets his/her own pricing and licensing terms and can sell designs through other channels, as well. Many also allow their designs to be modified and Open Desk promotes the use of MatterMachine, which is an in browser product customization tool.

Local makers need to be professionals, qualified to fabricate on CNC and registered with Open Desk. They must also handle the royalty fees entitled to the artist under the licensing agreement. This part of the business model I see as potentially problematic, since the artist isn't paid directly. What happens if the client isn't satisfied with the maker's fabrication of the design and refuses to pay, or only pays partially? The maker would likely pay him/herself first and the artist last (if at all) under these circumstances. Also, a maker could omit the royalty inclusion in order to bid more competitively and it's unclear from the website how this would be prevented. Lastly, once a maker has the files, what stops him/her from mass producing and not paying subsequent royalties? I would rather see Open Desk collect the royalty on behalf of the artist before files are made available for commercial use and a one-time use agreement/restriction in place for use of the design files. Technically, the latter may be difficult to implement however.

Still, I like the concept of open furniture design and it presents many interesting ideas for dissemination of my final project.

LICENSING OF GLOWHOUSE

Since this is the first product I may disseminate for commercial intentions, I would like to retain copyright but also allow others to have access to the design files for non-commercial purposes. I would grant the option to change the design, but also to share any modifications and to credit the original design. The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license meets these criteria and states the following:

Here is the Creative Commons license I will use on my final project documentation:


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jill Hartley Yokota - Email me :)