I’ve been going through all my models and profiles and removing words that I don’t think should be removed because I’m afraid I’m going to get hit by an automod because I used adjectives.
For example, when I recommend something in my print profile description (not the name of the profile), I do it because it will lead to the “best” or “nicest” finish. I.e., face-down models that are designed for textured plates look the best on them. Or when I’m explaining that I used an increased number of walls, it’s because it’s stronger. Or if I’ve chosen a surface pattern because it’s faster than the default one.
I believe in explaining to users what I changed and why I changed it. Not only for their education but to show that I had a good reason instead of just randomly changing stuff.
So now I’m trying to decide whether I strip out all explanations with just a list of settings and their value or by doing a word dance and replacing them with long winded explanations that very carefully do not use any adjectives or anything that remotely sounds like a claim.
Banning the use of certain fonts or capitations are highly questionable. What is the ground for doing so? Where is the research or legal precedence that using a certain fonts or style automatically gives someone unfair competitive advantages and should be banned? Once going down this route, it can be a slippery one. What fonts are good and what fonts are bad? Who decides?
This is indeed a slippery slope. I use bolding and fonts for informational purposes. I’m not randomly bolding stuff. I do it to indicate really important information or to make it easier to speed read/skim for those with executive dysfunction.
We start banning bolding etc., and we’ll get walls of text (like this comment) that are hard to read.
I’ve been reading back and it seems to be a case of be careful what you ask for as you just may get it…
While theres merit in the new rules, its not well thought out and too vague. While the initial target will be hit there are others who’ll be unfairly targeted. I suspect they will fall back to community policing similar to the current reporting system.
I’ve gone through my stuff and edited out words and a few sentences that were borderline. It’s better than putting crafty worded disclaimers at the bottom. Keep the facts there, be mindful of what you’re claiming even if you’re successful with your “fix” because you never know how your item is going to be used.
I spent 13 hours to fix my designs wording today and i am not even half done. I do treasure my post and i am making sure they dont get accidentally triggered. Not a easy job tbh but it so vague .
I get its a daunting task, I looked at it initially and thought goodbye charlie brown. Looking at Etsy is a prime example where plain text and pictures don’t stop abuse, its not going to stop people scheming.
The bottom line is as long as there is monetary rewards, there’s going to be people gunning for that carrot.
This message is to clarify our guidelines on using the MakerWorld logo and claims in model and profile descriptions.
MakerWorld Logo:
Using the MakerWorld logo on model and profile pictures to imply official endorsement is strictly prohibited. This is especially important for 3D printer accessory models, where users rely on trusted sources for quality and compatibility.
Model Descriptions:
We welcome accurate and informative descriptions that benefit the community. The use of bold text, special fonts, and capitations can be helpful to highlight key features, but please avoid using them for exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims.
I do have to partially disagree, with a logo we are talking IP → Trademarks.
Under current EU law for example private reproduction of a trademark simply is not seen as an infringement. - If an uploader has no commercial intention (does not sell the files, does not promote the own business, …) and the person printing it also does so for private use/pleasure only (some caveats do exist here!), there simply is nothing a company can do.
Taking up the image, sometimes the fear inducing scream of a legal eagle may be misinterpreted from the sound of a mocking bird bursting with anger.
But make no mistake, one entity crossing that line towards commercial use makes this person/company instant prey and it is up to the eagle/falconer if & when to strike that low value target.
Also, the more people throw around stuff with brands giddily plastered over it, the sooner the law may change or the hosting sites will be picked at…
Including a statement like @Quietman mentioned seems like a good idea to me nonetheless. I will include a sentence like that.
Of course MakerWorld can tell its users what deigns are not welcome, if they didn’t want any designs with Bambu Lab’s logo in/on them that would have to be respected.
Good examples (that smartphone promo is shame special), thanks. I did not think of this and it brings a lot of context to understanding the announcement.
Welcome lobocnc
I am wondering the same. My first estimate would be 20+ people distributed over three shifts just to stay 100% on top of the influx. AI is in fashion with all the young tech companies, if it comes and works as well as with the print failure detection we are in for a rough first ride…
With the provided context by others in this thread I now do get what may be the cause and intention with this.
My understanding sometimes is very literal, sorry. I asked for clarification in regards to the Bambu Lab logo because that is what was mentioned under point 7 in your announcement. Your clarification is on using the MakerWorld logo.
What I do interpret is:
I agree with your comments and have concerns about the vagueness of banned terms, caps, and the prevelent use of “etc”. For example, in many of my model descriptions I use “NOTE:” to draw attention to the reader important details about the model and/or print. Will the BOT flag this and delete the model? I also use “AMS”, “PTFE”, “NOT”(as in do NOT overtighten), “CLICK HERE”. Will these be flagged by the BOT and the models deleted?
If a model is flagged by the BOT, it doesn’t sound like we’ll be notified to make corrections, rather it will be automatically deleted. If so, are all the MakerPoints this model generated retracted?
I had in many of my models, user’s comments from their reviews. Comments like “Printed perfectly”, “Quick and easy print!”, “First fix that actually fixed my AMS pull-back errors!” “This is the best filament clip period”. Will these trigger the BOT and get the models deleted?
@MakerWorld please address these concerns about how this will be implemented.
To sum this up, you are fine if you are not trying to pretend you are from Bambu or Makerworld. Simply using it as a way to pay respect or ‘fan art’ is not wrong.
the main problem is we dont know how aggressive will be the AI bot used for detection. I wont want any of my 10k downloads design being pulled down despite i already made my best effort to change to suit the latest rules.
In fact i am so paranoid due to the very vague description that i went thru all my design descriptions 3 times already over 36 hours in!
I reached out to them right away, and I won’t disclose details. I can tell you if you aren’t trying to be dishonest and mispresent yourself. You are probably going to be fine.
Words such as fast, best, etc are not among the blacklisted offensive words. I don’t think BL wants to ban them. What is banned is the deceptive practice of misleading users by false or exaggerated claims. If there are multiple profiles and one of them is indeed stronger than the rest, then there isn’t any reason to delete the word strong from its descrption.
As to certain fonts, bold, cap, and style elements, I don’t think they can be banned, and it’s not MakerWorld’s intention either - see MakerWorld’s clarification above.
In my OPINION, the creator can specifically state what problem s/he saw in some existing models and that his/her model fixed, if that is true. This claim is specific and can be checked to see if the problem does exit and if creator’s model indeed fixed it.
Using words like superior is questionable because it’s vague and cannot be verified, and it’s only creator’s own opinion.
If you can back it up with facts I am sure that would and should be taken into consideration. There is clear botting and BS on Makerworld and I think they are going after that; not those of us creators legitimately trying do fun and useful things.
What falls under the Fair Use Doctrine is very complex and better left to trained laywers to argue and judges to decide. Definitely not something creators can just read an article or two and decide for themselves and then tell judges how to rule.
Regarding the BL logo, I believe this time MakerWorld is also looking from the angle of fairness. Models that have the logo on can get more views and downloads just because of the implied official endorsment. This creates an unfairness to those who don’t want to slap the logo on their models for no legitimate reason other than to get attentions.
I hope BL finally does something about the unauthorized use of their logo. Tolerance of misuse sends the wrong message. There are significant cheating and abusing of the platform in various ways. One has to wonder if the Broken Windows Theory appplies here.
