Seriously… not nice to wake up to this. I reported it, but I need to vent a bit.
My model with CC share alike:
Their model with restricted license.
How a remix can be created with a more restrictive license is beyond me.
And not that my descriptions are ever particularly creative or anything, but they basically copy-pasted it.
And there are no changes to the model at all. They overlap perfectly.
Did he change it so there is no light transmission in the circle? Neato…
I would imagine you’ll get it sorted, good luck.
It’s purple
…
Oh well, I tried
…
That’s how Bambu works, no? Based on a lot of open source work but the end result is locked down.
That said, I do believe that you are (and should be) allowed to use a more restrictive license. I recently designed a quite complex chess set (link) which was very mechanical. I did also design my own chess pieces, but I am less comfortable with this kind of non-parametric design.
So I could have looked up a nice looking, fitting, CC licensed chess set to fit with my board. I would have had to scale it down and add suitable cavities for embedded magnets. This would have made my complete model a remix (which I am fine with), and would have prohibited commercial use (again, fine with that) but I would not have wanted to upload that design with a CC license. And I don’t think that’s reasonable either, since the pieces would only be a small part of the complete model.
And yes, most of my models are original AND uploaded with a CC license, just because I believe in that stuff. But as long as there is enough of your own IP in it you should not be forced to also make your design freely shareable and remixable.
But in the case of this lamp, neither applies. Even if there were small changes (which there are not) I do not believe the changes are big enough to claim IP end thus a stricter license. But that is just a grey line
Every printer is based on a lot of open source stuff, and I am not sure where open source influence stops and just basic, logic design principles start. The Bambu thing might have been unwarranted, it is at least off topic.
The license thing however is more restrictive then I imagined. I didn’t meant that you can choose whatever license, but you can choose a license that still complies with the original (non commercial and give attribution) without allowing others to remix or use the stuff you added. Of course they can still go back and remix the original. But upon further inspection you are right (I think? you claim nothing? But you insinuate I’m wrong on the licensing part), it seems like any remix should be licensed the same.
Although it is very muddy, especially since there are multiple license types and you can combine different ones into one remix. What CC says is that you should side with the more restrictive one for your new license.
So it should be better if MakerWorld (and others) automatically copy paste license if it is a remix. However, it seems like that doesn’t matter anymore, since you can’t make a remix “exclusive”, therefore a massive amount of remixes are currently posted as original works.
AFAIK the remix licence should respect original author’s licence and CAN be more restrictive unless the licence is SA in which case it has to be the same. Also ND technically prevents remixes, but looks like nobody cares about that part and MW allows remixes of CC-ND licenced items.
Here’s handy chart I found on Creative Commons Remixes - Collections and Remixes: What's the Difference? - Research Guides at Hayden Memorial Library
All of those should be reported since they violate original licence unless the original licence is CC0. And even with CC0 posting that as original and exclusive is shady AF.
Well… At least they are persistent…
Well, see the positive side. There is no printed picture anywhere. Those are all renders so it should be pretty easy to report it and take it down.
It’s just a habit I guess. Now he’s taken a model from @jonathan.alborino
