Please cite one proven case of infringment when it wasn’t a 1:1 replica and there is no trademark, and the item in question is a 3d model. I sure cant find anything in a google search. Its not as simple as I made this generic thing and no one else can make anything similar. There are a few six sided dice on makerworld. They look exactly the same. Who has the copyright on those? how many more examples do you want? how about all the airless balls that are on there? who has that copyright?
1 Like
So you’ve had a ban before?
I’ll take “Hmmmm” for $200
6 Likes
This is like a bad movie, starting with the title. I can tell it’s going to be nonsense from the start, but I can’t stop watching until the end.
Couple of prints, used a boost and BAM banned!! gasp
At some point the story will loop back to the beginning and we’ll find out. Did they print their own model 20x and not ‘a couple’ of times !?? Was the BOOST incestuous??! Only time will tell…
Or maybe answers will come in the sequel: “I was fired from my job for using the bathroom?”.
11 Likes
Having been a bit involved with copyright wrt photography, the laws vary between different countries, as to what can be protected, and between the moral opinions. The lawyers are pretty expensive, too. So, a lot of the discussion/opinions here depend on where you are domiciled. Basically, you can copy whatever you want for your own use only, but any form of publishing, or reward/payment is tricky. Not a problem, until you are caught out, but as always, it depends on the steps that the copyright owner takes to enforce their rights. bbl had the opportunity, being the new kids on the block, to do something remarkable with makersworld, but they have not. It will only get more messy, as they try and patch up the raft of problems they have created. However, as yet, it is only a problem for those who post designs, and those users who know no better.
I am so tired of hearing people (usually with little or no talent or skill, and no legal knowledge) claim they can do whatever they want with other people’s work ie: Intellectual Property. I’m not an attorney, but I have, and will, hire them to protect my work. (I’ve done so primarily for photographic works, but now that I’m creating 3D objects, why would I change my approach now?) That said, here are some things to consider…
Copyrights (at least in the United States) are automatic when the object/material is created - no need to “file” in order for your creation to be protected. The only reason anyone typically DOES file a “copyright” with the “registrar” of the US Copyright Office is to be able to recover STATUTORY Damages in the event of infringement. (These can be quite substantial with almost no need to prove damages.)
As for Patents or Trademarks, those are a slightly different story, and my guess (without actually looking it up) is that the pokemon characters are a trademark infringement and trademark owners MUST protect their trademarks or potentially lose them - he’s lucky this stuff was taken down instead of him being served with a lawsuit (or criminal charges) for trademark infringement. (From what I see - 14 of the 17 items listed almost certainly violate copyright law - if they are not actual trademark violations.)
For those outside the United Sates, Agreements and Treaties typically cover enforcement of those rights (see the Berne Convention, NAFTA/USMC, or the various UCC Treaties, to name a few) and the US Copyright Office provides an IP Attache’ to assist in enforcement of those right within their (foreign) region for all works covered under US Copyright Law. I have a friend who has currently engaged the services of a Solicitor in the UK to enforce his rights on someone producing 3D models of his IP… We both have mutual friends (partners) in another U.S. company who have successfully defended their IP in the UK - and my understanding on that case is that the fines to that violator were quite severe! (exceeding statutory damages)
As stated above, my personal experience has been previously limited to protecting my photographic works. I have also come to the conclusion that it is always necessary to engage the services of a lawyer if my first request to cease and desist goes unanswered, and now because of some of the stupid responses I have received, I just go ahead and pay to have those letters drafted and sent by an attorney - because otherwise the matter isn’t really taken seriously.
The government may also choose to intercede for free (on behalf of the IP holder) with criminal prosecution.
For criminal information search:
US Copyright Office Title 501 Chapter 5 Circular 92
Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law aka Intellectual Property Rights Law is a very complex and sometimes challenging subject (my opinion), but in the end, there is no “right” for ANYONE to take someone else’s work and create a “duplicate” or “derivative” work without permission from the original author / creator! (Regardless of the false alleged “percentage of change” claims I have also heard, as ANY “change” becomes a derivative work automatically, unless the original creator says otherwise.)
My personal advice, from dealing with issues on this subject matter as a creator for more than three decades now, is if you are going to “make” anything - and believe that you can somehow take work from other people in any form without formal written permission (and/or royalties) - you should definitely seek legal counsel from an attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property Rights Law BEFORE you start posting things to sell.
For copyright information search:
US Copyright Office Title 17
For US Patent and Trademark information search:
Laws & Regulations | USPTO US Patent and Trademark Office Laws
2 Likes
You can also search a trademark here online for free: (Obviously remove the spaces and convert the dot text (since I cannot provide the actual URL in the post.)
uspto dot gov / trademarks / search
The Fair Use Doctrine is probably the ONLY exception to use of copyright material without permission from the creator/author that I can think of - but the question then becomes - how on earth do you claim “Fair Use” for a 3D printed model - especially if you are charging for the files, derivatives, or the models? It’s not likely that a news organization is going to hand out 3D printed models or provide downloads of a creator’s design as part of some news cast.
Schools could be another exception under that doctrine, but if their use impacted my ability to profit from my IP, I would suspect the doctrine would not apply. This would obviously be a question for an IP lawyer.
I would also argue to “those users who know no better” that ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Let’s put this in simple terms of art rights through US copyright law. Poses and very common mundane objects typically can not be registered. You can’t own someone sitting in a chair or a dog having a snout. It’s the CHARACTER, LIKENESS, UNIQUE SETTING and UNIQUE DEFINING TRAITS that are easily distinguishable. Also, said character can not based off another character that is copyrighted (hence why Sonichu or Sonic OS’s can’t be copyrighted for example).
Copyrighted art in the photos aside, your cookie cutters are based on characters that you do not have permission to use and the outline is based on their unique body shapes that falls under defining traits.that are instantly recognizable. That’s where you’re running afoul of US law. I’m not sure exactly if EU law is 100% the same. What law(s) take precedence is where the server(s) are located.
One can try to claim fan art fair use, but that usually only covers art made for yourself or maybe displayed on a website like Deviant Art. That’s somewhat in a gray zone that usually is ignored by rights owners or given a legal pass by courts You start crossing the line when you make something expressly for public distribution (such as print files) or start selling things without permission. That’s where rights owners have legal leg to start coming down on you and the fair use defense can fall apart.
How do I know this? I have many artist friends, some of who have gotten C&D’s for selling prints of original works that happened to contained copyrighted characters, and used to help run a college anime con. We had to learn the many do and don’t of rights/permissions quite quick to not be industry blackballed or sued.
2 Likes
Hmm. I’d say that it’s not completely because of your models. Some of them feature other people’s works, but not all of them do. Obviously the sprinkler you designed was totally normal. That shouldn’t be the problem. So better go ask MW why did this happen. But anyway, you should be more careful next time.
I try in any way (that I know) to ask to Mk, but no answer…
@MakerWorld can yopu explain the reason of my ban and all the taken down?
I create a new profile to use my printer, can I upload again my model?
1 Like
Make sure to ask for a manual review. They refused to un ban me until Uhl suggested I ask for one. They can look again and see if they’re willing to reconsider.
thank’s but how? I make the appeal but they gav me an automatic response
You just add another thing to the ticket and say “Can i please have a manual review”. Worked for me 
I open a new ticket… let’s see if they answer…
Stop farming and you will be fine…I guess?
Disregarding the whole remix I can see a few things from that Google screenshot above that are clear cut.
You used official Pokemon images on your models, you didn’t create draw those The Pokemon Company did, you mention this in a reply.
Those images were used to create the outline cutters, basically in your workflow you used the official images without authorisation.
Posted those images here as the image on each model without credit that they were gotten from the official website etc and used to create the models.
The fact also Nintendo are on a DCMA spree, look at Gary’s Mod they had to remove 25 years of fan content that people created from scratch not even using official references or images without credit like you did.
You are lucky you got a 1 year ban.
I agree you hadn’t been told this stuff and legalities and likenesses regarding characters.
It’s not apparent to most that reusing images especially without credit can be a copyright infringement as your not the person that originally created it or asked their permission to create your own work directly from.
It’s the same if anyone draws a image and I created a cutter and posted online without asking them of I can use that image then to also post their image along the cutter.
May seem like a grey area and ‘Fair Use’ which in general it may be, but unfortunately with Nintendo intellectual property they have issues even with fan creations it seems, they as said above got Garry’s Mod to remove all fan creations 25 years worth, they even have DCMA’d streamers playing their games on twitch etc and even for drawing fanart.
Also The Pokemon Company is very protective of their IP (Intellectual Property) likenesses etc.
I would assume this is a big reason for your ban and why you probably didn’t tell the full story to start with if you had a feeling about this stuff.
I am on thingiverse a lot, it has many Pokemon designs, Minecraft designs, and other designs of potentially copyrighted material. it is a fairly popular website, however none of those companies ever go and report those designs. It seems unlikely that they would do it on Bambu.
(also can someone please tell me if Minecraft has any copyrights if it does not then forget I said anything)
1 Like
Usually it’s a user that reports to either the admin of the site or maybe the copyright holder. Doesn’t matter who reports it or if it even is reported, still a violation. Whole point of it being copyrighted I believe.
As an observer I find it interesting that many are wanting to give credit to open source projects and are offended when it doesn’t happen, but then willingly look the other way when an intellectual property that’s owned by someone (or corporation) is violated. Different medium but still seems like that would be the same. I admit I could be looking at it wrong,
Microsoft owns Minecraft. You can bet it’s copyrighted.
As many have noted, fan made art is an exception.
ok, thanks for clearing that up
A registered trademark (circle R) has to be formally applied for. A trademark ™ does not and is simply declared. A copyright is implied upon creation of the design.