The new Exclusive Model Program is a great feature, but in my opinion, have some caveats.
To participate with a model in the program a standard file license is needed.
That means that no one can make any remix of your model, which is a big loss for all communities.
I suggest creating a new type of license that permits to making of remixes if they are exclusive model too.
Then the model wouldnât be exclusive.
Why not? Exclusive means not available on other websites, remixes have nothing to do with exclusivity.
They donât want duplicates. A lightly mixed model is counted as a duplicate here. So, where do BL mark the limit between a duplicate and a new item remixed from other? Hard. So no duplicates nor remixes.
And Exclusive means in this program what BL want it to mean.
Oh sweet summer childâŚ
The guideline is so subjective and the explainations in other thread so wiggly that Iâm not sure, but certainly itâs not just ânot available on other websitesâ
Totally agree. A great example is that I can make a remix of a model of mine which was a remix I did of a model which is now exclusive and thatâs allowed as the original download my intermediate remix was based on had a licence which allowed it. I canât now list the original design which has the element I used for my remix as itâs exclusive so the original designer is 2 steps away and not listed. Seems wrong to me even though the licences allow this!
In the cases Iâm thinking of I only use the first 6mm base of a model and everything above that is different to the original now exclusive model but I canât officially credit the designer of the 6mm base any longer.
Yea remixes can get tough with Exclusive Models, donno how i should post them.now
Remixes are not allowed. You must ensure that no copy of your model or a remix of it exists. This is because the licence type for exclusive models is selected in such a way that reproductions are generally not permitted (i.e. no copies and no remixes). An exclusive model is a model that nobody is allowed to redistribute or change and distribute.
For this reason, I reported a model of mine via a ticket and also indicated the remix, because I canât ban it as the model was previously under a CC licence. The response was a violation of the rules of the exclusive programme and removal the model from this programme, with points deducted.
We are currently still in a kind of test phase. When this period is over, you can be excluded from the programme if you violate the rules more and more, so you will no longer be able to list anything as exclusive. As we all donât know whatâs in store for us and how this will actually be handled in the future, please report your models now via the ticket system because of mistake.
I agree, makerworld has been awesome for that up to now. This is a hard battle because I of course want exclusive points but I hate that my models are under lock down.
Right, before a lot people just used the various CC licenses because why not, most people arenât trying to sell their models. This helped encourage a more open community of creation. The first thing I ever put on makerworld was a remix of a model.
Now they have significantly incentivized the use of the standard license, so no wonder many people are using it.
I agree with what others are suggesting here.
The incentive should be tied to keeping the model exclusively on makerworld, not whether it can be remixed within makerworld.
I have no issues letting someone remix my models within makerworld AND exclusively posting it on makerworld initially.
CC BY-NC-SA should let you choose to still enroll models on the exclusive program with the same benefits.
CC BY-NC-SA: This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms.
Just require that any remixes adhere to the same maker world exclusivity of the parent model.
Seems like a win win to me
The exclusive programme is intended to prevent models from leaving the âMakerworldâ platform, at least for a certain period of time. You canât prevent this with CC licences. And whatâs more, an exclusive model should only exist once and not in 10 different variants, which may in turn be exclusive.
As it stands, the win-win situation is the time limit. You can then place the model under CC BY-NC-SA.
Films are first released exclusively in cinemas in order to generate a certain amount of revenue and profit. Only later do the films appear on freely available data carriers. In other words, when the hype surrounding the film is over.
Great models should first appear on Makerworld and only be available there. The first address for such models should therefore be Bambulabâs âMakerworldâ. When users buy Bambulab printers, they should be sure to get the currently most popular, best models on Makerworld. Whether this calculation will work out in the future is another question.
A lot of people are changing their licenses to standard to enrol the new cash incentive. But this is a huge problem because many of those were previously remixes of CC models. Which says the remix must be distributed under the same license or compatible. So all those remixes of CC enrolling exclusivity program are violating the original license. The system doesnât even enforce that.
Im a fan of the points system they copied and improved from printables, which I participated in both. I donât like the direction this is heading.
Yes, Iâm in this situation with a no-win scenario preventing me from updating my remixes:
I designed a new set of spill proof ams desiccant boxes that are born from many ideas but new car I created. They wonât break open inside the ams when inserting removing, hence the name. They are the only featured set of ams desiccant boxes on MW, and are available on the Makerâs supply as a kit to buy a hygrometer as well as part of the creator program.
I list them as remixes in honor of the esthetic front that was first posted by a designer I want to always give credit to both as a remix and in the text of all iterations I have available. The geometry is 100% original, with zero reused from theirs but the appearance is identical so it only seemed like the right thing to do. They have put their models into the exclusive program. Rightly so. However now my remixes carry a grandfathered disclaimer about being remixed before the license changed. This is all well and good, but I cannot make any modifications at all to my models or my print profiles any longer because when trying to publish I get an error that the license doesnât allow remixing.
This has prevented me from adding additional instructions some users need.
The biggest problem is that if I do go in and remove the remix credit, the designer has every right to make a report claiming a violation of the source model license and Iâd risk having my models removed from MW.
Since these are available as a kit on the makerâs supply, the link would go dead for customers buying the hygrometers, because of this Iâve contacted MW and they are looking into it but do not have a solution for me yet.
for me this is pretty simple, if a model is under standard digital license, itâs because itâs original work, if itâs not then it cannot be under this licensing term and needs to be under one of the CC licenses, and therefore also doesnât qualify for exclusive model (which for me is very obvious, remixes are by nature not exclusive, just an adaptation of an original design)
then a very simple matter, if you disagree with the exclusive program, donât post as exclusive, you can still post regularly as always, the current trend that itâs your right to post as exclusive under what you think the rules should be and youâre entitled to it is very weird, this is an optional program that users can join if they meet criterias and they actually get rewarded for it, itâs not a right, itâs a benefit
It should be impossible to change a license to a less open version, just like Printables does. There a license freedom is irreversible. But even then I think it is absurd how many people list their models as exclusive for the couple of cents. It completely destroys the community vibe.
But itâs also a very bad incentive for how you list (or not) remixes. I am looking for a mask to possibly remix for the contest, and I see multiple Guy Fawkes masks. Both âexclusive modelsâ but both remixes/copies of this one on thingiverse: Guy Fawkes Mask by Jtm - Thingiverse
Exhibit A:
This is just a blatant copy, the JTM logo is still in the corner. But it is listed as an original, exclusive model. This âdesignerâ is luckily too stupid for his own good with not erasing the logo, but the model has been up for 5 days and nobody cares.
Exhibit B:
This is a low poly version of the same model. But the problem is, itâs hard to check. And it is by a designer with 650 followers and 94 models. But I overlayed the models in the slicer and you can clearly see that it is the same model:
The original model requires to give attribution and also prohibits commercial use (and in my eyes the exclusive program earns you money and thus is commercial use):
So the issue is not only that material is less likely to be remixable but also that there is less incentive to correctly post remixes, making it stealing/copyright infringement.
I am not sure what the right course of action is with the above models and the likely hundreds/thousands more on this platform but as a designer myself this theft incentive and fenced off exclusivity program just rubs me the wrong way.
You have no choice but to report it. Especially as you have already collected the evidence. I would be interested to know what the designers of the model on which a model is based have to say about this.But I have already read something elsewhere about a designer who also knows the problems, but for whom it is too much work to take action against everything. So he doesnât do it and just watches.
Adding to the non attribution violation,
this is a more explicit violation of the original license
You are free to:
- Share â copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt â remix, transform, and build upon the material
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
The standard license clearly revoke rights.
The âlicensorâ is the person on Thingiverse, and they cannot revoke the rights of anybody that has used/shared/remixed their model. In other words, they have to respect the licensee when they use/share/remix the model.
As far as I can understand it is possible to put a more limiting license on a remix of the Thingiverse model with the âCC BY-NCâ license.
That said, you always have to credit the source model and you are never allowed to benefit financially from any derivative that you designed. Therefore both examples breach the original license and should therefore be adapted/removed.
@KanneKaffe âYou have no choice but to report it.â⌠I do have a choice, and that is to NOT report it. I will report anybody that steals one of my designs (happens a lot on MW sadly) and I might report designs that violate designs made by others. Most of the time MW handles quickly.
In this case though, since I publicly gave these two examples, I am not going to report them myself, but others are welcome to do it with more anonymity. One of them has already been removed and the other (the more popular) is still up, so I guess somebody else ticked the report buttons already.
If so it would be nice to know why one has been removed and the other not. I guess because the low poly version is harder to prove that its a derivative and therefore ok to breach licenses with?
Yes, this is a problem. I donât know if there are a lot of people doing this, but itâs highly probable that some have done it or will be doing it.
There can be other problems showing up down the road, such as remixes of MW exclusive models showing up on other platforms. Further complicate the matter will be that these remixes are posted as original design. That will bring up the argument of what is a remix and what is an orginal. To complicate the matter even further, if the original owners of the MW exclusive models posting similar models on other platforms, will they be considered breaking the exclusivity clause? How different these models will have to be in order to avoid violating their exclusivity obligation?
It will be simpler if MW only allows models that use the Standard Digital File License when the models were/are released. The pool of eligible models will be smaller but simplicity of the implementation should be worth the tradeoff.
Update: I got a response with two recommendations:
I had to inform the ticket responder that option #2 is actually impossible, as the license options and exclusive toggle are grayed out once a model is in the exclusive program. So until they completely overhaul the whole system, weâre kind of screwed.
