You seem quite confident in that statement. Are you referring to a specific legal definition distinguishing between original and remix? I haven’t come across a legal definition, nor has Makerworld provided a clear distinction in that regard—not even close. So far, it’s been mostly personal opinions on this topic.
1 Like
all my model was reported and taken down
The Terms of Service do not mention the word remix at all, so I’m uncertain why you’re referencing it. The single sentence provided for each upload type is quite ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways. From my perspective, it conveys a different meaning compared to your interpretation. There’s no explicit coverage of the concept of taking ideas from someone else. This seems to reflect your personal perspective or preference rather than a legal or Makerworld-defined definition.
1 Like
I feel like a lot of people have their own version of what a remix means. Is there any sort of legal definition as it applies to 3d printers? I think not. I asked chatgpt what remix means in the world of 3d printers, and generally agree with it.
In the context of 3D printing, “remix” refers to the process of taking an existing 3D model and modifying it to create a new design. This can involve changing the dimensions, adding or removing features, combining elements from multiple models, or otherwise altering the original design to suit a new purpose or improve functionality.
The model can be original (in that the person modeled it from scratch), but still a blatant copy. A model can be inspired by another, but not necessarily be a remix. I don’t think a remix covers the recreation of an existing item/product that isn’t 3d printed to start with. I don’t think a remix covers being inspired by someone else’s design/product.
The d20 with a bee may exist in some form, but OP here didn’t remix anything, OP recreated/copied it, if OP was aware that the dice existed on etsy to begin with. OP said their friend asked them to make it, so there’s no indication that OP realized it was anything other than an idea their friend had. At best it’s an incidental copy, at worse, it’s a shameless copy.
Uhl isn’t arguing against respecting people’s IP, copyrights, patents, or anything else like that. Uhl is just arguing his point of view on what constitutes a remix vs just a copy. I’ve not known Uhl to be one to think it’s okay to infringe on other people’s ideas/rights.
5 Likes
All is well, I take no offense, and thank you, @Josh-3D, for clarifying my statement. I’m genuinely interested in the distinction between original and remix, which seems to lack a clear definition.
@Gabric : Would you mind posting more screenshots of the other models that have been taken down, as @JonRaymond suggested? Perhaps this could help in identifying the issue.
Perhaps we all get a little too heated on the subjects of copyrights, trademarks, ip, and all of that. These types of threads too are a breading ground for wild speculation, and with that, arguments arise among potential friends.
There’s some part of this puzzle we’re missing. Google images gives us this insight into what was up there. There’s also Makerworld china. Then there’s the image that OP shared of the 3 unrelated models.
https://makerworld.com.cn/zh/@GLB_Gabric
I don’t see why everything would be taken down. Is there really an issue with every single object? Or is there a wider issue they’ve identified?
There’s also like this. Which a lot of these are the same pose. https://cults3d.com/en/users/cutterchile/3d-models
Those graphic/poses though are incredibly generic. I’ve found sellers on etsy selling nearly identical images. I’m not arguing that OP stole from the cults3d link, but used the same base graphics and that could have been enough to get things taken down.
someone could have gone and found prior art for every object.
2 Likes
The cookie cutters might be seen as spam, especially if they’re uploaded in a short period of time. These could be perceived as low-effort or low-quality models, which I recall MW aims to remove.
I recall @cruse2382 was advised to consolidate or remove his car silhouette models to avoid account termination due to being labeled as low-effort or spam. He has built up a substantial following, so they gave him a warning (I am guessing). Otherwise, he might have faced sudden banning just like OP.
1 Like
This is too generic of a definition. It is only a remix if original files were used and modified. The only way he did anything wrong is if the other guy has a COPYRIGHT on it. He surely hasn’t spent the money on that so anyone can recreate it as they want. Should they? NO but they are ok to.
1 Like
Basically its scummy but not violating anything. Just because he sells them doesn’t mean he has the rights to anything D&D. Those rights are owned by Wizards of the Coast a subsidiary of Hasbro. This guy just recreated it. And you have to file for a copyright. There are most likely zero copyrighted things on makerworld as it costs real money to attain.
Making something doesn’t give you a copyright, patent, or trademark. Those things must be applied for. Like I said, Its a scummy thing to do but not really breaking any rules if he made the model himself without using the original. Personaly I think he should take it down also, but Bambu apparently took care of that for him 
That is partially incorrect. Creating something gives you a copyright, but not a patent or trademark. If you take a photograph e.g., you are the only person that is allowed to distribute that photograph unless you transfer your copyright (exclusively or unexclusively).
4 Likes
The fact its sold on etsy and a DND dice kinda tells me the market isn’t big enough to waste the money on those things, but I have seen people do dumber things. I’m also pretty sure the “patent hounds” have already got the patent for a 20 sided dice locked down if it were available to even be patented. Best the bee master could do is get a trademark for his bee emblem. (Also highly unlikely)
If your general idea of copyright were true, then there could only be one ball, cone, box, star, etc. This guy didn’t use someone elses model, he created his own and duplicated something he saw on etsy. Unethical yes but thats about it. And whoever made the 20 sided dice with the bee on it infringed on whoever created the 20 sided dice to begin with then by your logic. Does he have permission to make his? doubt it. Search “Glock” on makerworld and see how many come up. Who has the PATENT out of all of those creators? how many look the same? Are they all remixes? Of who’s? This is just one example that comes to mind.
It’s not “my idea” of the term copyright; it’s how it is defined. Copyright applies to the actual work, whether physical or digital, not the description of the work. If two people create a sphere and save it as an STL file, they own the copyright to their STL file, not the concept of a sphere in general.
If he created the D20 from scratch, he owns the copyright to that specific file, not to the concept of a 20-sided dice. This is unrelated to design or utility patents, which could theoretically prevent someone from copying the idea.
Glock is a brand, which is a different case altogether. It is a registered trademark, and people are not allowed to use the name except in very specific instances.
5 Likes
They only have rights to their stl, not anything similar. Just like your photograhy example. I can take the exact same picture from the exact same spot,angle, etc and produce the same picture without violating your “copyright”. Just like this guys copy of the dice. As long as it isn’t 1:1 exactly the same, its not the same. Slight difference is all that is necessary as long as no original files were used. It is still a d*ck move to copy someones original niche creation though.
1 Like
Generally speaking, yes, I agree. In practice, it’s a spectrum.
Story time: I recently released a model after researching to ensure nothing similar existed. Finding nothing close, I released it in good faith, confident it was an original creation not inspired by anyone else’s work. However, I recently came across a very similar model on Makerworld. I hadn’t found it before because the title and description used different keywords than mine, so I didn’t consider those terms during my search. Should I feel guilty now because someone might think I copied someone else’s work? (rhetorical question)
And how should we deal with commodity items like containers and dices? In my opinion, unless a specific, unique characteristic has been copied, it’s not necessary to attribute anyone else if there is no connection between the model and one’s own creation.
Thanks you all for all the answer.
Offcourse my cookies cutter have the same shape of other cookies cutter, because I, like other, used the official image.
If anyone don’t trust me, I can share some screenshot from my fusion360 account.
By the way, right now, I can’t use my printer because of the ban, and @MakerWorld don’t answer to me…
I’m not going to explain it or try to teach it here, but you have a deep misunderstanding of copyright and how it works. If you want to learn and educate yourself on it. It is something you can get a moderate understanding of via simple Google searches. I wouldn’t normally suggest Google for educating yourself in legal matters, but copyright is a very common and very well documented topic.
If you have any interest in designing, and especially selling. Then I would suggest you do some proper research into it.
5 Likes
It’s not true, you can use the printer anyway, don’t talk nonsense. In my opinion there are many things wrong with your account and what you say, starting with the Makerworld warnings since they always motivate everything. To get a one-year ban they definitely found non-suspicious downloads, otherwise you would have had a month-long ban. As long as you don’t tell the complete truth, you don’t have much to complain about. Starting with the fact that you say you can’t use the printer
I can’t use the printer from the cloud, that is the main reason because I choise bambu.
I can use it only on local mode (now i create a new accont to use it).
As already told, I got the 1 moth ban a week after I register (like 6 moth a go) for suspicious download, because i upload all my model from thingiverse and start spamming all over the 3d forum and facebook page that i know (at that time i didn’t know that was not legal here)