I actually recorded two versions of the video. After finishing one recording, I realized I wanted to better delineate the parts between the unbiased evaluation of what we know so far, and the righteous indignation. And while I wanted to make sure Kikoni had the space to do the right thing, the front presentation of the video definitely shifted towards the latter.
YouTube picks 3 possible thumbnails from your video, and 2 of the thumbnails for this video that they suggest is that bright eyed little girl smiling at the cameras. I don’t know what magic YouTube has worked into the thumbnail detection, but it is screaming at me that people will click on that little girl’s face.
That might have serious COPPA implications for YouTube.
Let’s review what we know about the Konomi Sota: Marketing is maybe writing checks that the tech probably can’t cash and they’re stealing designer’s works and calling it their own.
If you talk about this 3D printer, it should only be to warn people away from it. Until and unless they do the right thing. And the right thing, by my estimation, is to:
- Give credit to the designers
- Link back to the source for them
- Put a link to the particular creative commons license they were released under
- Publicly acknowledge that they recognize artists rights
But they should probably consult a lawyer as well.
I would be willing to say that they’re not making money from these models directly, and so might not be in violation of the CC’s NC clause when it’s listed, but they should probably consult a lawyer to be sure. I think there’s an argument on this one to be made either way, and I’ll be honest, I haven’t actually read the NC clause of the CC license. I know I’d consider these steps sufficient, but in matters of the law, I’m not an expert.
I do know, however, that in the court of public opinion, Kokoni’s trial starts now.
