BLACK FLAG

WHITE PAPER
a primer on copyright and 3d guns
 Black Flag White Paper

When Zarathustra’s three apes founded The Gatalog in June of

2021, they did not yet know they had killed JStark1. Their
founding manifesto was a confused, but earnest, refutation of
digital rights management (DRM) written for Ammoland2.

On August 25, 2021, they got the first test of these values when
Everytown sent a takedown notice to DEFCAD for the removal
of three Gatalog files3.

Joined by FPC, our groups quickly organized to fight the first

federal intellectual property claim in the history of 3D2A.

It would not be the last.

2024 All rights reversed - Reprint what you like

1
Introduction The Dignitary Theory

Exactly one year into the Everytown litigation, Though the property-based view of copyright
the loudest and largest of Zarathustra’s apes was settled by Donaldson v Becket (1774), there
made dueling copyright statements to remains a traditional line of argument in support
DEFCAD:

of copyright as a personal right based on ideas

of dignity.8 This dignitary view includes
Doxxed by Odysee, and embarrassed at having reputational dimensions (distortions of an
no role in the case, The Director of The Gatalog author’s text are reflections of the author) and
claimed the FGC-9 under a dignitary theory of communicative dimensions (authorship is a right
copyright.4

of public address), and is much more established

in European law, though the U.S. became a
Stun-locked and doing as he was told, The party to the Berne Convention in 1989.9,10

Secretary of The Gatalog quietly claimed the

TacDaddy under an intellectual property theory To better understand The Gatalog’s claim of
of copyright.5
dignitary harm, we can make a comparison to

libel, which was the group’s intention in
Let’s examine these claims, their theoretical developing and promoting the “FEDCAD”
bases, and their innovative consequences. meme11. When Gatalog Command first changed
their minds about the open-source status of their
files, they chose to fight unauthorized
Copyright is Property republication of their property as a reputational
offense.

Since 1710, authorial copyright has been

considered a form of property in Anglo-
American law.6 Though arguments for copyright
protection still rely upon moral claims of an
author's inalienable, natural right to reap the
fruits of his labor, the demands of early English
literary commerce and the modern publishing
trade have produced a readily assignable,
temporary property right.7

Because The Gatalog pretends to have no

economic interests in maintaining copyright, we
will address only their moral and non-economic
property claims. Figure 1: Private intimidation

1 @marquis2baillon. “The Occult Designer.” Acceleration.Party: https://acceleration.party/the-occult-designer/.

2 Holladay, Alex, et al. “The Threat of DRM-Infused Home Gunbuilding.” AmmoLand: https://ammoland.com/2021/04/the-threat-of-drm-infused-home-
gunbuilding/#axzz8Zx5cfw61.

3 Everytown v. DEFCAD, 21-3079 (2d Cir. 2021).

4 Wilson, Cody. “On Free Men and Freeman.” LEGIO: https://ddlegio.com/on-free-men-and-freeman/.

5 TacDaddy: https://defcad.com/library/5734c214-18b7-4a47-b1ea-2e9f469b11b6/

6 Statute of Anne, 8 Ann. c. 19 (1710).

7 Stern, From Author ’s Right to Property Right.

8 Id. at 30.

9 Drassinower, Authorship as Public Address: On the Specificty of Copyright vis-à-vis Patent and Trade-mark.

10 Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty.

11 Original FEDCAD: https://defcad.com/library/7dea2d10-bf83-4b64-b145-d88395d51b2b/

2
 12
A criminal threat. But we at least see a formula Today, copyrights are entitlements in intangible
13
and principle of proportionality at work. We objects.

read: Because I own the FGC-9, you harm my

reputation by not respecting my control. As An owner’s entitlement is enforced as a
repayment, I will harm DEFCAD’s reputation.

universal right, and is understood by terms like

“theft” and “piracy.”

Here we run into our first problem.

These are the terms of an official, public

Suppose DEFCAD pursued reputational ideology that borrows heavily from Locke’s
damages for the FEDCAD libel. Does that mean natural rights theory of property and the labor
17
the right being vindicated is a property right? theory of value. Modern copyright is described
The traditional view of libel is as a personal as existing independently of the law, and yet,
action, and personal actions at common law are regardless of romance, it is entirely a creature of
14 18
not assignable. DEFCAD could not transfer federal statute. This has interesting
ownership of its legal claim to a third-party consequences for our discussion.

plaintiff in Florida, for example. Likewise, a

dignitary theory of copyright only describes the When The Gatalog released the TacDaddy under
unassignable, personal rights of an author. a Creative Commons license, they were not
Though the creator might look elsewhere to giving it away. Creative Commons licenses are
19
defend his moral rights, e.g. the Visual Artists copyright licenses. When you use one, you

Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), he makes his claim (try to) reserve legal rights in your work. This
15
to support a property right.

“some rights reserved” approach to publication

is often represented as a scale, where public
But does The Gatalog own the FGC-9 in the domain licenses are the most “open,” and full
20
first place?
copyright is the least. Here we see the
TacDaddy’s chosen license:

The Intellectual Property Theory

A property right means a right to “exclusive

use,” which includes the right to control
commercial use. Though eighteenth-century
authors may have had a common law right of
Figure 2: TacDaddy license
property in their physical manuscripts and even
printed, paper copies, it took another century of The file may be free in terms of price, but it is
philosophical and legal work to expand this not open content in any meaningful sense.
16
right to encompass an author’s ideas.

I
12 llinois Statutes Chapter 720 § /
5 12-6 .

13 The creator’s use of “disavow” is almost more interesting. Fetishistic disavowal is the interpretive key to all acts of FuddBusting. See Alenka
Z čč P v
upan i ’s v
er erse Disa owal an d the Rhetoric o the Enf d.

14 A dissentingJ ustice Taylor in M illar vT []

aylor (1762): “ T his action is merely vindictive: it is in personam not in rem. ; N ow there is no maxim in our
‘
law more clear and plain that this, that things in actions are not assignable. '”

I
15 ntellectual products are often identified by reference to their authors, and their value may depend upon this identification. For VARA, see 17 U .S.C.
§ 106A .

16 For more on this, I recommend O ren Bracha’s O d .

wning I eas
17 Because natural rights language is the basis of this orthodoxy, it’s worth noting that Locke himself did not extend his theory of property to the
z //
intangible, and that he wrote against the idea that copyright existed at common law. See Dea ley: https: www.copyrighthistory.org cam commentary / / /
_ / _ _ _
uk 1690 uk 1690 com 97200712821.html. I note this not as a defender of Mr. Locke, but as the only guy in the movement who’s read him .

18 The moral rights of the romantic figure of the autonomous creator are central to justifications of copyright .

//
19 From the horse’s mouth: https: creativecommons.org faq / /# is-creative-commons-against-copyrigh t

// /
20 An example of this scale: https: goopenva.org courseware lesson 4433 overview / / /
3
It still invokes copyright to restrict a user’s Federal CAD
freedom to modify or reuse the work for any
purpose. This is why Creative Commons
If you’re not an open-source organization, why
licenses are neither free nor open source
even use a copyright license?

software (FOSS) licenses. They are copyright

licenses that merely reproduce the commodity
Why not just reserve your copyright and
form and expand the scope of intellectual
derivative rights entirely? In December of 2023,
property.
The Gatalog did just that and registered their
files with the U.S. Copyright Office.26 The SF5,
Creative Commons vs. Open Source Amigo Grande, and P99 are the very first
examples of a new breed of federally registered
Gun printing began with FOSS licenses because guncad file.

they invert copyright law.21 To frustrate state

and world government attempts to control 3D So, to recap: Ten years into the revolution, in
gun files, Defense Distributed used permissive the name of resisting traceable firearms, gun
academic licenses to grant as many rights in its registration and confiscation, we will… register
files as possible.22 We see this purpose of our design files with the federal government to
inversion in the preamble of the GPL v1.23
police unauthorized reproductions.

We see it in the symbolic violence of the

“copyleft” sign and the mantra “all rights But the message is beyond parody. A Gatalog
reversed”.24
copyright says: We grant users no rights at all.
The use of our files isn’t your right, but rather
our mercy. One term for this innovation might
be “protecting property rights,” and another
might be “rights management.” But the best one
is “gun control.”

Figure 3: Copyleft symbol

And here the transition is complete.27 Without
Before 2022, we could at least say The Gatalog JStark’s leadership, his disciples formed a gun
had made a category mistake. Perhaps when control organization in less than three years. At
reading the licenses of early 3D gun files, they least we understand their position. Yet
misunderstood the purpose these served, which something is unresolved. A deeper problem
was as a hack. FOSS licenses use the techniques remains, and at first, we can only hear it
and language of corporate liberalism to fight whisper:

international arms control. After 2022, The

Gatalog began to let the folk meanings of these Does federal registration establish an
legal terms control their thinking. Worse, they enforceable intellectual property in these files? 


laundered their acts of possessiveness as

standard liberal moral and political positions.25
Are 3D gun files even within the scope of

copyright?
They began to believe copyright was real.

21 DEFCAD on open source: https://defcad.com/opensource/

22 Liberator’s original license: https://github.com/RandyMcMillan/Liberator/blob/master/License.txt

23 “…our General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free

software--to make sure the software is free for all its users… When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price…”, GPL v1,
February 1989, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.en.html

24 Hill, Gregory (1965). Principia Discordia. “Ⓚ All Rites Reversed - reprint what you like.”

25 I’m thinking of the naïve feminism on display in discussions of the RGB Crescent: https://defcad.com/library/65b285c7-
a570-4522-8dee-7585733480c1/

26 The SF5 copyright registration: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/36166774

27 The Deterrence Dispensed website banner has for years made this apology: “Please bear with us through this transition.”

4
But Is It Art? A breakthrough new gun is not such an object,
though it can be protected by patent (if you
don’t share it first).34 Just remember, copyright
Copyright protects works of “applied art,” and
is not a “game of chess in which the public can
does not protect works of “industrial design.” 28
be checkmated.” 35

In a report prepared by the House Judiciary

Committee accompanying the Copyright Act,
Congress sought to “draw as clear a line as
possible between [the two].” 29 Incorporating
Mazer v. Stein (1954), and the concept of
separability, Congress confirmed that even
though the three-dimensional shape of an
industrial product “may be aesthetically
satisfying and valuable, the Committee’s
intention is not to offer it copyright
protection.”30

Since 1976, only the “physically or

conceptually” separable artistic elements of
designs for useful objects could be protected by
copyright. Where no separation is possible,

cases like Apple Computer v. Franklin (1992)

Figure 4: Copyrightable sculpture of a trombone player
say that idea and expression have “merged.” 31 In
Star Athletica (2017), the Supreme Court
introduced a two-part test for separability:

“... an artistic feature of the design of a useful

article is eligible for copyright protection if the
feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-
dimensional work of art separate from the useful
article and (2) would qualify as a protectable
pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on
its own or in some other medium if imagined
separately from the useful article.” 32

Let’s see how this all works in practice.33

Creative Objects
Figure 5: 3D scan not protected by copyright

Purely artistic physical objects will be protected

by copyright as sculptural works.

28 17 U.S.C. § 101.

29 See, H. R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1976).

30 Id. at 55 .

31 Redditors will say Baker v. Sel den, but Pamela Samuelson makes the case for Franklin in her Reconceptualiz ing Copyri ght’s Merger D octrine .

32 Star Athletica , L . L . C. v. Var s it y Bran ds, Inc., 580 U . S. 405 (2017) .

33 I owe the arrangement of the following section to Michael Weinberg’s What’s the D eal with 3D Printin g and Copyri ght? https: // defcad.com /
library/324750ef-45e5-4de6-a3df-ef43905b04b5 /

34 Pennock & Seller s v. D ialo gue: “ But if the public, with the knowledge and the tacit consent of the inventor, is permitted to use the invention without
opposition, it is a fraud upon the public afterwards to take out a patent.”

35 Morri ssey v. Proctor & G am ble , 379 F .2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967).

5
The elements of the design of this trombone Most 3D38 gun models are products of industrial
player, who is not based on anyone, were design.

developed without36 regard to utilitarian pressures

or practicalities. It is a work of applied art. This is to say their design decisions are driven
Because it is a work protected by copyright, a entirely by functional considerations. And we
3D scan of the sculpture does not create a new wouldn’t want to take artistic liberties with pin
copyright. But the scan makes a copy of the hole placement now, would we?39

creative object, and this is what copyright is

supposed to regulate. We will need to get A popular exception to this rule is in the remix
permission from the rightsholder to scan or print culture, where designs are often released with
the sculpture. (separable) graphical or sculptural additions.

Useful Objects
Purely useful objects in themselves are not
subject to copyright, and 3D scans of these are
so accurate that they are not recognized as
artistic interpretations deserving of independent
copyrights.37 The only questions arise when a
useful object has some artistic element that may
be separable.

If we consider the FMDA DD17.2 model, we Figure 7: The incorporated anime design is separable
might apply the Supreme Court’s test from Star
Athletica. Can any of the features of the 3D
frame be perceived as two- or three-dimensional
works of art separate from the useful article?

Would any of these features qualify as a

protectable pictorial or sculptural work, either
on its own or in some other medium?

Figure 6: DD17.2

36 If this model was based on a real person, the analysis would change.

37 See Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008).

38 The great irony in our space is that *only* non-functional or videogame models are copyrightable.

39 See infra note 45.

6
Practicum Now we’re the creator of two new works. One is
a purely creative sculptural work with its own,
new copyright.

We can apply what we’ve learned to a novel fact

pattern. Say a creator releases a new design And the other, while not copyrightable, has
named Plastikov v4.40 He knows his build guide heightened artistic value through determinate
is copyrightable, but that his 3D models are not. negation.42 We profit economically and morally,
So he models a copyright statement into the though not without some insider trading.43
model assembly itself!

Why Call Them Gravediggers

It’s not because the Gatalog killed their founder,
and it’s not the fact that they continue to
fraternize with his assassin.44 It’s because of the
entirely normative, moralistic approach they
take in JStark’s absence; in the absence of any
concrete politics. On the most basic level of
analysis, it’s easy to see why they got the
Figure 8: Wat Do? copyright thing wrong. They don’t know any
attorneys. They don’t put skin in the game or do
According to Star Athletica, the only way to commercial work.

comply with the creator’s copyright is to remove

the potentially copyrightable elements of his But they do practice a mendacious idealism.
design. In this case, the only copyrightable part Their pleasure is in teaching “love of
of the design is the copyright statement itself. community” as fear of neighbor. Free Men
By gently removing this, we return the model to Don’t Ask, goes the old motto of defiance. To
legal insignificance.41
rely on copyright, this becomes: Free Men Must
Ask, a preachment of timidity.

They suppress files in the name of developing

them. See the tired sermons justifying the
impotence of their process; see the moral,
tyrannical meaning of Deterrence Dispensed.45
They employ some sperg named “Dr. Death,”
whose role, presumably, is to announce and
administer the public burial of new projects.

They endanger files in the name of protecting

them. Copyrights are assets under bankruptcy
law. The first lawsuit The Gatalog loses to
Everytown, a bankruptcy trustee can enter the
Figure 9: Do rights to the files for auction.46

40 Plastikov v4: https://defcad.com/library/3a0d7e3e-795b-49d1-b387-967cd9148fe2/

41 This is not to say the model has no expressive content or value. It just can’t be copyrighted.

42 Here we have Zizek’s famous “coffee without cream.”

43 I adopt Baudrillard’s meaning from his Conspiracy of Art.

44 DD2’s promotion of Jake Hanrahan is like the Jackson family promoting Martin Bashir after 2003.

45 Thread with creepy eugenics defense: https://tinyurl.com/ypusy84e On morality as tyranny, this post employs the most authoritarian formula in
political philosophy: https://tinyurl.com/29zjp5c4

46 Imagine Everytown (or me!) wielding your files against you-- for the next 100 years.

7
Like most people with military or military In Bernard Edelman’s study of the history of
industrial backgrounds, they’re not capable of photography and copyright, the law’s substance
strategic thought.47

is the presentation (and therefore constitution)

of the commodity form of the subject.50

But their greatest offense is invoking the names

of Locke and Jefferson as theater.

IP laws and discourse help us understand the

mirror-structure of ideology and legal
They pretend that their hatred for the bold men interpellation. Through copyright as imaginary
of our time is instead an admiration for bolder relation, we recreate each other as “owners” of
men of past times, and this is the definition of valuable “works.”51 And this cycle of recreation
using the dead to bury the living. via institutional recognition proceeds even to no
particularly creative end.52 Behold the discourse
Ideology in Action of the university:

“Ok,” I hear you say, “the NEETs got copyright

and 3D guns wrong. But what’s the use of
criticizing their primitive social norms?”

Legal categories like “intellectual property” and

“the author” serve ideological and social Figure 11: Quadripode 53
functions.48 They support the superstitious, Beneath the appearance of dispensing
grammatical conclusion that to every “deed” knowledge, The Gatalog’s agent only produces
belongs a “doer.”49
more castration.54 The university’s interest is in
perpetuating its fantasy of itself. Its copyrights
protect its master signifiers, and they allow
others to adopt these master signifiers as their
own in a position of hysterical identification.
Now, with identity and influence, we’re at the
heart of things.

The Gatalog didn’t need copyrights when it had

influence.

When it lost influence, it required them.

Figure 10: The agent embodiment of knowledge

47 The mistake is seeing the public domain as a loophole, instead of the objective.

48 See Foucault’s What is an Author?

49 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Part 1 – Aphorism #17.

50 See Edelman’s Ownership of the Image.

51 In Althusser, it is only through imaginary relations that we “live” our social relations as subjects.

52 Invariably, the loudest people in 3D2A have never developed or released anything.

53 Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis (Book XVII).

54 Style points will be awarded for employing an actual castrato to do this.

55 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Part V – Aphorism #192.

56 Common motto of 2nd gen 3D gun printers. A reference to Odysee.com.

57 In Drake’s England, piracy was policy. So it was in the Texas Revolution. So it is at DEFCAD.

58 From Richard Brathwaite, Whimzies (London, 1631), quoted in Christopher Lloyd, The British Seaman, 1200–1860: A Social Survey (Rutherford,
N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1970), 74.
8
 Epilogue

One is much more of an artist than one knows.55

In deference to the community’s need for profile work, and because the law may
one day change, I announce FEDCAD.com. Let it be a place for respecting and
contacting all 3D gun rightsholders. Let it serve as a reminder that, in this
movement, the only possible theft is property.

***

56

“We Sail the ‘See.”

Aye, sailors, I know you. But the first gun printers were pirates.57 I will not spare
you, my sailors.

Speak of IP and of “moral rights,” but the sea hath taught me other rhetoric.58
There is an artist’s right to destroy. My vandalism of the Plastikov is the only
artistic part of it now. When I broke the printed, clay feet of its creator, that was
called “fair use.”And by this labor, I have re-authored the file.

Ed Teach died nearly forty, The Commodore of Charles Town Bar. Well, my
Spanish fort in the Fifth Circuit is stronger than any base he made in the Bahamas
or the Outer Banks.

Sail under this flag, young pirates, and fear no copyright!

The Royal Navy has no power here.

9
The Royal Navy has no power here