Enough Benchys, enough Flexi-Dinos, except

As Steve Jobs once said…

We have enough Fart apps now.

I think we have enough Benchy & Flexi-Dino models now. You can only add so many hearts, but it in half, squish or stretch them.

I cannot see any benefit in seeing yet another tiny change to one of these models. Just the other day another Flexi-Dino appeared and was entered into a contest, I assume with the assumption it could win.

That is a stretch hopefully too far.

I just saw a brand new model with Benchy in the title and my heart sank, what, another one!

I was appalled and my eyes (at least the one that still works) rolled.

It was then that I spotted the username, @ozarkexpeditions, how could someone we trust, drink from that old well?

I looked at the thumbnail and my eyesight is so poor I couldn’t work it out. I clicked on the model.

Finally

Something that ADDS to the designer world and is related to one of those two well-worn models.

If you haven’t spotted it yet, take a look, it is cool.

Grumpy old man approved.

NO MORE BENCHY OR FLEXI-DINO models please, if you must, do something so different it has true value.


A quick poll.

Should MakerWorld block any new variations of the Benchy and Flexi-Dino models? Excludes creations like the one linked above and in the video.

  • Yes - there are too many Benchy and Flexi-Dino models
  • No - we are glutens for punishment
0 voters
3 Likes

can we knock down the me too ■■■■. One dude has a good idea and then there’s 1000 of them. I get it, but c’mon.

1 Like

In the spirit of open source, the GNU software license 1.0, all the way back in 1990, embraced the concept of “Copyleft” as opposed to “Copyright.” It was a legal entity that ensured nobody could copyright open source software for commercial use and that anything derived from it would also be free. It’s unfortunate that there isn’t a Copyleft license to protect something from being ruined by copycatters.

Here’s an idea. Maybe we introduce a new concept. Let’s call it:

Copyguard: “Ensures the original creator’s rights are maintained, preventing unauthorized and low-quality reproductions.”

Here’s a possible license text for you all’s consideration… :cowboy_hat_face:

CopyGuard License

Summary

Preamble

The purpose of this license is to protect the originality and integrity of the work, ensuring that the original author maintains quality control and prevents unauthorized and inferior imitations.

Terms and Conditions

  1. Grant of Use: Permission is granted to use, distribute, and modify the work under the following conditions.

  2. Quality Control: Any modifications or derivative works must meet the quality standards set by the original author. The author reserves the right to review and approve any changes before distribution.

  3. Attribution: All copies, modified versions, and derivatives must provide proper attribution to the original author, including a link to the original work.

  4. Non-Imitation Clause: Unauthorized replication or imitation of the work that results in inferior quality is prohibited. All derivative works must be clearly marked to differentiate from the original.

  5. Distribution: Copies or derivatives may only be distributed under the terms of this license, ensuring the same quality control measures are maintained.

  6. No Endorsement: Use of the work does not imply endorsement by the original author of any modifications or derivatives unless explicitly approved.

  7. Revocation: The original author retains the right to revoke the license if any of the above conditions are violated.

  8. Warranty Disclaimer: The work is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, express or implied.

By using, distributing, or modifying the work, you agree to adhere to the terms and conditions of the CopyGuard License.

I think we can agree that there is reason why we have these issues since hosting models for 3D printing became a thing.
Every (real) creator wants their work protected - but there is no way to actually enforce it.
All those sites come with ads, google trackers and more - EVERY listing counts for them in terms of real world profits made from it.
Does not matter how many similar or even identical models there already are - someone will always at least click on them and with just alone provides money for the hoster.

In the early days we had a few minor hosters that took the creators seriously.
You could set all the licence types you wanted, like today.
Unlike today though it was enough to report that you spotted your model elsewhere and the hoster would take care of the takedown notices and such.
Of course all this came with a major downside that meant the end of their services once freehosters became more dominant.
You had to properly register and it was monthly subscription fee.
But that was offset through the downloads and in some cases sales of the models.
Meaning, if you had enough models that attracted enough people you would get at least a voucher - that you could use to extent your subscription for example.
I collected about 8 years of their service this way by the time they went bust ROFL
What a loss… :frowning:

The measures required were once impossible, today hash checks can be done on the fly…
A model can be checked for creation dates and far more, even compared to an existing one on the servers in fractions of a second.
Security and sharing tokens are long a standard for website-, account, and username access.
Same for having account linked across platforms.
I mean:
Why would any creator use lots of very different name to put models on various hosting sites???
Any good one I know use the same name throughout for obvious reasons.
But even if you would decide otherwise or someone already has your username taken - why can’t we link our accounts to ensure the security of our creations and how they might be used?
Wouldn’t even cost the hosters any real money to implement…
Same story for the actual violations by their users.
If YOU steal the work of someone else and post it on a different hosting site - who here is REALLY at fault?
You for doing what is so damn easy or the hoster for being too lazy and negligent to have any measures to prevent theft or just fake accounts with no verification needs?
And in reality the hoster should should be liable for allowing license protected artwork to be posted and making a financial gain from - while only too often the thief also has a financial gain that remains unpunished.

Contests and other ‘promotional things’ only add insult to injury.
Some fools think the few gains in vouchers and such make it all worth while.
Their combined gains is nothing to the gains of the hoster or company behind it.
And as long as this is the case we won’t see any real action to limit the pain by our hosters.
Am in the game now for more than enough years to have seen it all and how the game is played LOL
Only once there is some sort of more or less binding international rules set for the game not much will change not matter for how many more years why whine and complain…

I was bracing myself for a strong critique of my new model, but you pulled quite the plot twist @MalcTheOracle! Your post gave me quite a laugh.

I would also add “impossible passthroughs” to the list as well as models that may have run their course. If you haven’t seen the impossible passthrough benchy, it’s one line description gave me a chuckle!

1 Like

My reputation for complaining and penchant for bait and switching are two of best qualities.

You have given me a really bad idea for a model.

I might have to add a pass-through and after that we can close the door behind mine.