Copyright vs remix

MakerWorld
1

Many think they are 1:1. A major thing to note is copyright, there is hard rules on that where remix there honestly isn’t. Like as far as I’m aware, there is no legal definition on what a remix is. And what a remix is, generally has been agreed on if you use part or all of someone’s asset.

  • Copyright:
    • A legal framework that protects original creative works like 3D models.
    • Grants the creator exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works.
    • Copyright is about ownership and protecting the original creator’s control over their work.
  • Remix:
    • A creative act of transforming an existing work, often through modification or combination.
    • In the world of 3D printing, it often implies direct use of the original model’s assets.
    • Remix is about the process of creation and building upon existing ideas.

Why they’re not the same:

  • Copyright isn’t violated by inspiration: You can be inspired by a 3D model and create something similar without infringing on copyright.
  • Remixes CAN violate copyright: If a remix is not sufficiently transformative or doesn’t secure permission, it might be considered a copyright infringement.

In essence, copyright is about legal rights, while a remix is a creative practice. Remixes can walk a fine line with copyright law, but the two concepts themselves are distinct.

To give an example a true remix, in the technical 3D printing context, requires using some portion of the original model in building your own. This is because a remix usually involves direct modification of the original design file.

If you built your model completely from scratch, even if it closely resembles another model, it’s not technically considered a remix in the world of 3D printing.

  • So lets say you built an entire 3D model of a car life size. And 1 little screw on there you used that was someone else’s model. Even if you made everything else. that 1 screw means it is a remix.
  • However, even if someone else made a screw, just because you have a screw in your model doesn’t make it a remix. IT HAS TO OF USED THE ORIGINAL ASSETS OF SOMEONE ELSE WORK IN PART OR FULL.

What this does is if the person who made that screw, their asset is used in making of your asset. Then they get credit for it. However, if they didn’t make the asset, then there is no reason to give them credit.

A ELI5

Think of building a snowman:

  • You can see your friend’s snowman and make your own, even somewhat similar or looks exactly the same.
  • But if you don’t use any of their actual snow or sticks, you didn’t remix their snowman. You made your OWN!

Same with 3D printing:

  • You can look at someone’s model, even make something similar, but if you built it from scratch, it’s not a remix, it’s your own creation.

Where as copyright has legal backing and is an entirely different thing.

2 Likes
2

Nice post indeed and long overdue too…

Having said that…
Copyrights and remixes/recreations don’t play well in the 3D printing world.
No site hosting models, at this point in time, offers any help if your work was stolen.
And even if you can make the offending hosting site take down your stolen model - it will re-appear under a new listing shortly after, an endless race you can’t win.
This is especially of concern if your stolen model is offered for money.
No matter what the offending hosting site won’t pay you the money back the thief made from your work.

Remixes are a really relative thing and you can try to define it in all sorts of ways …
Won’t mean those that anyone cares and many hosting sites feel the same.
Take Thingiverse…
You can just add your remix to the original model to have it listed in context.
But nothing is stopping you to only or to as well list it independently.
For me a REMIX is whenever someone uses my model to make modifications to it.
Be that for just some section or by taking an individual part of the model to build something very similar.
Like using my gear mechanism for a clock to add it to their own clock model.
Someone taking something from my nuts and bolt collection for his model does not create a remix, the person just adds my design to their model.
Since a fastener (in my world anyway) is just that I could not care less.
But I do care if my clockwork ends in the model of a clock from someone else without proper credits :wink:

The real issue for many years is that creators won’t get the required support from hosting sites to protect their work and to take down stolen work.
Far too many of them try to claim they only have the username and that they can’t check if a model is already hosted elsewhere.
A blunt lie as there is actual search engine for just that, type in what you need and they give you models from basically all available hosting sites.
About 5 years ago I contact several hosting sites and requested the model files shall come by default with a checksum.
Also that this checksum shall be used to confirm a newly posted file is not already posted by someone else - be on this site or another.
What do thing I got as a reply from our leading 4 sites ?
Nothing, nada, nix,zilch, just the automated reply that they got my Email ROFL

1 Like
3

This is a problem everywhere. Like when I did YouTube videos it was common for someone to steal a video and reupload it. And I wouldn’t see a single cent. Even on places like Udemy I had to threaten with lawyers before they did something and still I didn’t get a single cent.

But nothing is stopping you to only or to as well list it independently.

I’m actually fighting one on maker world. Where trolls keep marking my model as a remix, and maker world keeps taking it down even with me proving I fully made it.
It is a freaking nightmare and it is why I made this.

But like you I generally don’t care if someone remixes my models. Like I’m 99.999999% sure my rocket model was used in a few contest since I had a ■■■■ ton of downloads during that period. And magically that stopped after given models were uploaded and won. Like they changed it to be a card thing, but it is more effort than I care for to go after them and there is no reward.

1 Like
4
  • Remix:
    • A creative act of transforming an existing work, often through modification or combination.
    • In the world of 3D printing, it often implies direct use of the original model’s assets.
    • Remix is about the process of creation and building upon existing ideas.
      You write it yourself. You have been criticized for not including the wording remix as it is not a model created from your idea but a modification of another model. I told you yesterday to mark it as a remix, they wouldn’t have canceled it

Screenshot 2024-04-19 194626
Screenshot 2024-04-19 194626991×224 33.8 KB

I’m telling you, because I was there too some time ago. The thing that makes you most angry is that they targeted your model, when there are so many copied models and they are still there.
I have now dedicated myself to models completely made from scratch by my imagination, so I avoid any discussion. What also helps me is the 3D scanner which allows me to create unique models

5

When I saw this post of yours in the link below. In my mind, I thought that if you copy a person’s design, in your case almost every single detail of it, then it should still be considered a remix whether or not you downloaded and modified their file. Copyright protects the expression of the idea, not just the physical files manifested from the idea.

https://forum.bambulab.com/t/it-was-taken-down-again-but-i-have-no-way-to-appeal/70994?u=simeyesee

I asked ChatGPT to see if it agrees with your assessment or mine, and here is what it said,

If the designer used the original visible design as a reference and closely copied every aspect of it to create his own model, then the design would likely be considered a “remix” rather than an entirely original creation, based on the following considerations:

Analyzing the Nature of the Copying

  1. Copying Design Elements:
  • If the designer has used the original design as a reference and has copied its visual and possibly functional elements closely, then the new design can be seen as derivative. This is especially true if the distinctive, non-generic features of the original design are replicated.
  1. Intent and Execution:
  • The intent to use the original design as a direct template or guideline for replication plays a critical role. If the execution results in a product that matches the original in distinctive features and overall appearance, it underscores the derivative nature of the new work.

Legal and Ethical Implications

  1. Copyright Concerns:
  • Under copyright law, while ideas themselves are not protected, the expression of those ideas is. Copying the expression closely—even if not by downloading the digital file but by recreating it from visual reference—can still fall under copyright infringement as a derivative work.
  1. Community and Industry Standards:
  • In the 3D printing community and among creatives generally, such practices might be viewed negatively unless proper credit is given or permission is obtained. Ethically, many would argue that this constitutes a remix because it builds directly upon the creative and intellectual property of another creator.

Definition of a Remix Revisited

Given the details you provided, the situation described would generally be classified as creating a remix, because:

  • The new design is not independently conceived; it is visually and conceptually linked to the original by the deliberate replication of its features.
  • The creation process involves using the original as a blueprint, which aligns more with the concept of a remix than with the creation of an original, independent work.

Conclusion

Thus, while the designer may argue that they did not technically “download” or use the digital file of the original model, the approach used still constitutes making a remix. The replication of specific, visible design aspects from another work, used as a reference, typically qualifies the resultant piece as a derivative work in both legal and community contexts.

P.S. Don’t bother with the claim you made in the other post about using 3D builder. The shape of the fire is not copied from the original cartoon, but is a different shape and obviously copied from the 3D design you copied.

4 Likes
6

You really asked chatgpt?

It’s funny how it isn’t acceptable unless if it strengthen your point. But when it doesn’t people freely point the flaws in asking it and taking it as gospel.

Like your opinion, I don’t care so I’m not fighting it anymore. I have better things to do.

Ps it is shocking how you didn’t learn from last time and you could simply asked how I made the fire. But I guess assuming and putting down is your go to. So again, I don’t care about your opinions or to fight it. It doesn’t matter anyways.

7

You know this isn’t the same person right?

2 Likes
8

I don’t take ChatGPT as gospel, but do find it quite useful.

I saw your post about how you blatantly copied the original design and then tried to claim it wasn’t a remix, which from an ethical standpoint didn’t sit well with me and from a technical standpoint seemed incorrect. Then saw you making another post about your dubious claims about remixes, so I looked around the web first to see if I could find information about this specific scenario, but couldn’t find anything addressing it, so I figured I would check to see what ChatGPT-with its quick access to many sources of information-would say on the matter.

Why would I bother asking how you made the fire? You were already being obviously dishonest about your “3D builder” claim. You didn’t even bother putting in a minimal amount of effort in adjusting the curves of the fire of the 3D printed design you copied. So you either tried to copy the curves of the original print’s fires exactly, or you are being even more deceptive and brought the STL into Fusion, made sketches of the fire so that you could make your own copy of it.

You don’t care about my opinion and that is fine. I have absolutely no respect for people that make blatant copies of other people’s work and don’t have the decency to give credit where it is due and even worse double-down when confronted about it.

3 Likes
9

Yeah, I was wondering about that. I don’t remember having interaction with him outside of this present interaction.

10

Sorry about that I am mobile and didn’t want to jump back and forward.

11

Just to provide some perspective. It takes 4 years of law school above 4 years of college, then years of specilized practice on copyright lawsuits and some winning records to become an trustable copyright lawyer. Even after that, these established lawyers can never be sure who wlll win the case. All they can do is to present their argument, and let judges to decide.

Should we be so sure about our knowledge and opinions on copyright related issues?

1 Like
12

I am maybe a bit late to this discussion but felt it important to add an important element insofar as it pertains to copyright from a legal perspective of an ip and commercial attorney. What copyright seeks to protect is the expression of an idea in whatever form, be it a song, a drawing, a book or some other type of medium. 3d print is probably a qualified medium. What copyright seeks to protect is the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. The source of the protection finds its basis in the legislation of a country as well as international treaties such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. To put this in the perspective of 3d models, infringement of copyright would first require a demonstration that the two models present very similar features in appearance to the extent that one could infer or presume that the initial model was copied. This is usually done by the plaintiff who alleges infringement of his creation. If this test is passed then the defendant (the one who we reproach of having copied) will then have to demonstrate that he did not copy the initial model. At this point, the defense that is usually put forth, in addition to the two models presenting significant differences, is one of independent creation whereby the defendant will try to establish that he created his model without having copied the features and appearance of the original model and often times that he was not even aware of the 1st model. This opens up a problem with proof and adds to the uncertainty surrounding differentiation (ie. what is deemed sufficient to having a new creation vs a copied creation). To expand on the notion of independent creation, if the defendant created an identical model to the 1st but did not see or was not aware of the 1st model then he will not have infringed the copyrights of the author of the 1st model even thought the two models may be identical. The snowman analogy put forth earlier may work for a very narrow definition of a remix but it does not apply to copyright. Many models may qualify for this narrow definition of remix but in many cases there is copyright infringement. Hope this helps and will lead to redefining what is a permissible remix that respects the copyrights of the original creator.

3 Likes
13

Hey I was looking for something about copyright and i stumbled upon this I recently got a Bambu printer and I want to start selling 3d prints\files and I was wondering if it’s legal to get files off the app and either A sell or print and sell them. I want to make sure cause I don’t wanna steal anyone’s work or anything I’m just trying to save for a car not to mention I don’t want any legal trouble

14

Generally speaking, selling 3D prints is legal if the model’s license permits it or you have a special agreement with the creator (e.g., a commercial license for a monthly fee). However, there is always a risk that the person who uploaded the model is not the original author or that it infringes on someone else’s intellectual property (IP). In such cases, selling the prints would be illegal, even if the license appears to allow it. Unless you create and sell your own models, you can never be entirely sure.

15

You can only sell someone else wrk if they agree to it.

You never have the to take someone else’s work and profit from it without express permission.

Check the licence on each model page. If it allows commercial resale of the printed item without any individual agreement then you are safe.

These are very rare.

You should always ask the designer and tell them which modes you wish to sell. They may have different rules for each one.

They may require purchase a subscription to a service like Patreon. This means you pay a fixed amount monthly whilst you are printing and selling the models. You can’t subscribe for one month and then sell forever, that is theft.

Lots of designer are happy for people to print their modes for personal use, but, not to ever sell them r give them away. Doing anything with these modes would be a crime.

If you ask a designer as they don’t answer you, that is a NO.

A Standard Digital License

This user content is licensed under a Standard Digital File License.

You shall not share, sub-license, sell, rent, host, transfer, or distribute in any way the digital or 3D printed versions of this object, nor any other derivative work of this object in its digital or physical format (including - but not limited to - remixes of this object, and hosting on other digital platforms). The objects may not be used without permission in any way whatsoever in which you charge money, or collect fees.

Other licenses have different rules.

You can’t make a copy a painting and sell it as you don’t own the original or the rights to reproduce it or gain commercially from it.

You can do it legally, just make sure you are doing it legally and don’t guess. Crime doesn’t pay.

16

Indeed. I don’t know about Makerworld because I haven’t looked at as much stuff here, but one thing I’ve noticed at Printables is that people who steal others’ models often set the license to Public Domain to make things even worse. It’s gotten to the point that when I see a Public Domain model on Printables, I do a reverse image search… and look at that, it’s almost always a paid model somewhere or at the very least doesn’t allow reuploads. And because the thief set the model to PD, now the cat is out of the bag – a bunch of people have downloaded thinking they can do whatever they want with the model.

17

Happened quite often with my designs. Nice that the copycats are so generous with other people’s work.

1 Like
18

Sorry this is late, but I just saw this thread and read your comment here. I make quite a bit of Gridfinity stuff, which I found out recently is under the permissive MIT license. However I was under the impression that as long as I did not directly copy the original creator’s models (which I did not), then I would not be remixing his original work. However, in order to design anything with Gridfinity, some aspects of the original design (or what would probably be referred to as a specification) need to be used. That is, the dimensions for the grids and interfacing parts of the various bins or other Gridfinity compatible modules, have to use some dimensions from the original author’s work.

I asked about this on Reddit, and a commenter mentioned that the specification for the base grids and interfacing parts of the modules would more likely require a utility patent, and copyright would not really be the right framework. That made sense to me, as Gridfinity has seemed like a specification, more than a thing.

My question though, is if one were not making the same modules as the original creator of Gridfinty (Zach Freedman), but was using the same, or very similar dimensions for the grids, and interfacing parts of the original gridfinity designs (though not directly copying from his work), would you expect that the resulting works would be considered as derivatives of the original designs, for the purpose of copyright?

19

I found an Etsy seller of my designs, who thought they were in the clear due to a similar issue. However in that case, it was a matter of the person remixing my design (which was under a CC NC license) being unaware that they did not use the same NC license as my original design. They fixed it, and the Etsy seller pulled the models, so it worked out.

So I suspect that some of the issues with the Public Domain licenses being applied to low effort remixes under the CC licenses, are due to folks not understanding the difference, or being confused when selecting the license on MW (since it asks questions to fit a license to a model, rather than having a user select the license directly).

For that and other reasons, I’m trying to move away from CC licenses to the standard license, since CC generally doesn’t seem to fit well for 3D models. For example, it appears that CC treats what would be regarded as a copy or a print profile by most people, in the same way as a remix.

20

Zach was himself highly inspired by the work of Alexander Chappel. So as long you create your own file and grid system, you could sell it. I don’t think neither of them patent the grid principles nor were the first to came up with such an idea.

1 Like