The automotive aftermarket has largely settled that; even without the original design files, it's perfectly legal to make compatible parts, patents and the like notwithstanding. You can build an entire "small block Chevy" engine wholly from parts that GM did not make, and it will fit perfectly in a car that originally had the "genuine" one.
IANAL but as long as you don't violate any patents they have (if any) nor use their trademark, feel free to make and sell keyboards that look like theirs (not that a keyboard of their design is particularly distinctive anyway.)
Now, what is interesting is if someone were to blatantly violate the license and start manufacturing commercial keyboards. I believe their only recourse would be to revoke their license of the design files, and then it would be copyright infringement. The thing is, I don't know how copyright law would handle any damages.
I don't know if making a physical product could be a violation of copyright, regardless of if you had a license to use the design in the first place. I could definitely imagine a company trying to enforce this, and a judge throwing it out because it should have been handled with patents.
Again, not a lawyer, just speculating on a forum.
What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
> What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
Probably fair use, provided the design wasn't the main focus of the photo, but merely part of the "set dressing."
> What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
> What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
Those questions are simpler - both scenarios would be derivative works of the original files, so covered by the license.
If the design files qualify for copyright protections, then modifications to them would clearly be derivative works.
I don't think it is clear if the keyboard itself would be a derivative work, as it almost certainly can't be protected by copyright. This is what patents are for.
The design files don't qualify for copyright protections, they describe the design which (maybe) qualifies for copyright protections.[0]
The artistic design of a specific keyboard can certainly be copyrighted, but not the functional nature of it.
[0]The exact wording might be protected, but not the factual information contained. Sports scores, or say measurements of a keyboard, are not copyrightable items as they are just facts, though their presentation might be.
This is probably acceptable
> What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
This is probably NOT acceptable
> What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
If you used that for personal things yes that would be acceptable. I do not think that would give you the right to then sell that as a product neither digitally nor phsically
Hmm, without patents it would definitely be fine to scan an existing one and recreate it. I think this would be fine too, but any time you are clearly going out of your way to skirt the law is a red flag. The thing is, I don't even think technical designs are copyrightable outside of their aesthetic value.
What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
If it is indeed covered by copyright, then these would likely be violations, though I guess it depends on how prominent it is in the staged photo.
...this stuff is fun to think about.
Keychron is a keyboard/mouse company. It is VERY reasonable to interpret "non-commercial use" as meaning "don't sell mice/keyboards built or derived from these designs."
NOT "we are going to sue you if a 3D-printed copy of our mouse ends up in the background shot of your movie," or similar contrived madness.
- If it’s a company doing an NC license, probably best to be careful because they can make your life hell with lawyers.
- If it’s a random joe doing an NC license, feel free to ignore it because they don’t have the money to defend it anyway. Especially so if it’s CC-BY-NC-ND, people that pick that one are especially likely to be in the all-bark-no-bite category.
At least that’s how one of the companies I worked for treated CC licenses… I don’t work there anymore.