Somebody just contacted me on MW to inform me of a model thief on Cults. I went to go file a report to discover that Cults requires the person filling such a report to contact the thief first, and then wait for them to not comply, before sending the report.
I am not a lawyer, however, I believe this to be in violation of the DMCA. What does everyone think?
“my report may not be processed.” is also just a lie. You can’t click SEND without checking that box.
Cults3D is based in Europe, France. DMCA is a copyright law in the United States of America.
So they must comply with European law; whether that is the case is another matter.
If the model is a MakerWorld Exclusive, you can try using the copyright protection service.
Just check the box and send it. Cults is very unreliable, they may or may not remove it on the first attempt, regardless of if you contact the person or not.
Also, report using the copyright option, not intellectual property infringement. Better success rate.
It’s unlikely that European copyright law would allow this. I should be able to send a report without creating an account or notifying the thief.
Why give the thief an opportunity to simply remove the model and avoid repercussions? This system of Cults seems to be designed to harbor model thieves.
I’ll try reporting without contacting the thief and let Cults know that I didn’t.
You specifically asked for legal advice. My answer: DMCA is the wrong legal structure. Not everything is United States of America. If you want legally advice, you must apply European law.
In fact, you can contact cults3d even without an account: hello@cults3d.com - you could even write them a formal letter.
That said, whether Cults3D sticks to that laws is another matter.
There is a very specific way that you have to fill out a DMCA claim (edit or other kind of takedown) in order for it to be valid
Cults WILL ignore it if you do not do it properly.
(Once upon a time I made tabletop games and in the intersection of that and 3d printing, our community saw a lot of take downs from Games Workshop over Warhammer content, both legimate and illigimate. Cults3d was always “good” for “clonehammer” as they were very strict about takedowns and required the IP holder to do absolutely everything properly, as opposed to some other platforms that did takes downs without even checking)
edit You can find out on the internet how to write the letter properly
100% exactly that, and that’s how it should be, because otherwise anyone could just claim whatever they want. If the OP really did write only that one sentence, as shown in the screenshot, I can already tell it will be rejected.
However, Bambu would do the same, because there’s no evidence. They want proof, too, and that’s important and right.
I hope OP wrote it in a bit more detail and backed it up with evidence after all.
Issue is that there is no proof of ownership in their claim, not even a link to the original posting.
As well it shouldn’t. The processes are in place to protect both the ip holder from infringement AND to protect the poster from frivolous or malicious copyright claims. Honestly, without links, there is no confidence in any advice. Is your model 100% original design, is there any preexisting designs you copied, etc, etc. Also, Cults can’t violate something that has no jurisdiction over it. So, send the links, at least to your model.
Of course I sent in evidence. Cults took down the stolen model.
I wouldn’t have made a post about this if Cults didn’t require you to contact the model thief before filing a report. A charitable interpretation of this requirement would be that they’re trying to avoid doing work, but even that would (according to this non-lawyer) jeopardize safe harbor protection. Regardless of their intention, it creates an environment where model thieves can steal models from different designers, collect as much money as possible, then remove them if/when they get caught and contacted by the original rights owner, without Cults even knowing about it. The thieves would never face any consequences.
The harsh reality: cult3d designers say the same thing about Bambu and MakerWorld. Many stolen models have already been uploaded to MakerWorld. To be precise, it’s not just cults3D designers who are complaining about Bambu.
Of course, that doesn’t make it any better, but for context.
Step outside the Bambu bubble for a moment and see how many people are upset about MakerWorld for exactly the same reasons you’re upset about cults3d. Including registration and account creation.
We even had a separate thread for this here on the forum, but at some point most people gave up on reporting things like that to MakerWorld because they kept asking for more and more proof and putting up more and more hurdles. I remember writing to designers personally to tell them that their models had been stolen and ended up on MakerWorld.
Again, it goes back to processes and procedures. It is called a cease and desist order. If you were an attorney you would know that. You are required to contact the other party because that is part of the process. Call it arbitration if you like, it requires a good faith effort by both parties to work it out before getting the legal system involved. It did make me curious to look at your models and you definitely have a couple that an IP infringement case could be made against. The harsh reality is that, yes, people can steal ideas and make money copying them until someone stops them. Have you looked at Temu, Aliexpress, Walmart, Amazon for Christ’s sake. It is filled with ripoffs of other products. Heck, Coleman might not appreciate you appropriating their likeness for your drink can holder. That’s close enough to what their products do that if they pushed it to legal, you would lose and it would be a bit expensive for you. Regardless, read about Mancini and the radio, Edison and the light bulb (■■■■, Edison and 90% of what he “invented”), Graham bell and the telephone, The Beatles versus Apple computers, etc. The list goes on and on. Right now it is the system we have, but you could always become a big city lawyer and do something to change it. 
Because the platform must allow the “thief” to respond. There could be a license, the reporter could be mistaken etc; “false” takedowns do happen.
edit If you go to court, a court will also ask if you tried to contact the vendor first, and then if you tried to contact the model platform. If you have not done those, the court will be “upset” at the potential waste of their limited time.
