Inspired vs Remix

MakerWorld
1

I have been browsing through some past conversations regarding creating and sharing models and I am curious if anyone has worked out whether or not there is a difference between being inspired and remixing.

It seems that remix has more or less a clear definition being something along the line of using the digital file from another creator and editing or otherwise modifying it. It also seems to be considered if one was to start over from scratch but arrive at a similar place that a model still could be considered a remix. The exception seems to lean towards the functional aspect of a design - two hooks may look alike but the nature of a hook means that both models can be original even if both look like hooks.

I ask because I have made a model from scratch that is heavily inspired by another model. This model is an assistive device for opening bottle caps. I built my copy because the original was limited to a few bottle cap sizes and I wanted to be able to adjust to fit more types of bottle caps. I felt pretty confident at first that I was just inspired by the original, especially since I started over from scratch. However I realized by the time I finished my model that I also copied the overall shape and appearance of the original. While my model can have more options, when sized to match the same bottle caps it looks very much like the original.

Now, I can go back and redesign the handle. The mating part to open the bottle I feel is going to fall under the “hook” example I used above and I feel if I avoid a pure copy of the handle I could claim I am now at best inspired by the original. Am I correct to feel this though or is it still a remix? At what point can I start to claim the model is mine and not someone else’s? I want to be able to share mine - I think the extra sizes are worth having and sharing. I also don’t want to be yet another jerk who steals stuff. I know I put the work into this, and I feel the basic shape of a bottle cap opener is more or less described by the bottle cap, not the designer of the opener. I can’t argue though that I saw the other one first. There are many boxes, trays, coasters and so on that one could argue are somehow all copies of one another but at the same time each original versions of each other. If one is inspired to create a new box based on seeing another is that a bad thing?

I am assuming this is a sensitive topic for all the creators here. I hope that time has helped some people come up with a clearer answer than I could get from the past. Maybe I missed a guideline published by MakerWorld or another similar site facing similar issues. I don’t know. I probably am just hoping everyone here just tells me I can do whatever I want. Either way, I haven’t shared my file yet and maybe never will if it really is just a remix.

3 Likes
Remix vs Original - Very confused
Remix vs Original - Very confused
What is the etiquette for Rating, vs. Print Profile, vs. Remix?
3

I think your question premise missed a phrase that you have fallen into.

You suggest two choices:

  • Inspired
  • Remix

There are three

  • Inspired
  • Remix
  • Copy

Inspired relates to seeing something and thinking “I can also solve that problem my way.”

A remix is “I am using someone else’s work to create my own.”

You appear to have gone with copied, this is, “I like their idea, I am not using their model files (remix) itself to create my own design, I am just looking at it and copying everything they did.”

The difference here is you have spotted the problem and realise you do not wish to be seen as a copier or outed as one and suffer consequences.

Copying the a design someone else didn’t time creating is theft, there is no positive spin on it. I doubt that was your intent, but by your own words, that is the result.

You belief you were inspired has led you to duplicate the design rather than solve the problem yourself with your own.

You initially implied you saw the model, figured it could do with a greater range of options and then went about creating that. What you should have done is kept the problem in your head and designed a model of your own to solve it.

If you release the model you have, which by your own admission is a copy of a design and nit an original design solving the same problem a different way, you risk all the consequences.

It is cheating, theft, whatever phrasing you wish to add. You would be benefiting from the time and effort the original designer made and passing it off as your own.

My strong recommendation would be to start fresh, remember your aim “The problem that model solved doesn’t could be improved by having a competing model that can genuinely stand up and be considered your own.”

Create your own designs, do not copy those of others, intentionally or otherwise.

There are many ways to solve problems or we wouldn’t have so many different storage container models, but each container solves the problem differently, be it functionally or decoratively.

3 Likes
4

You’ve just fallen into the biggest beginner’s trap, but you’re not alone as it happens to a lot of people.

  • It is completely irrelevant whether you created the 3D file yourself in the case you describe

That’s not how the world of 3D design works. Many people make this mistake: ‘But I created the 3D file myself!’ It’s not the 3D file itself that’s protected, but the idea and design behind it. Just as you wouldn’t copy a famous Pablo Picasso painting, sign your name underneath it and claim, “Yes, but I painted it myself!”.

You could make a science out of it, but it’s really quite simple: Does it taste like a chicken, smell like a chicken, look like a chicken? Then it’s a chicken. - Does it taste like someone else’s work? Then it’s someone else’s work.

From my experience on this forum, I can tell you that breaking the rules almost always starts with someone opening a topic and trying to justify themselves with a statement like: ‘I made the file myself!’

Then there are often pages and pages of discussion. Advice is ignored, the piece is uploaded anyway, and then MakerWorld takes it down again for breaching the rules. However, you can now break this cycle.

4 Likes
5

I think I knew this which is what caused me to try and discus it here. I appreciate the expansion on my premise - copy is a good addition. When I posted this I could not decide if I wanted someone to encourage me to share or to explain where I went wrong, but I am glad that some people I respect on this forum took the time to give clear and well explained criticism. I will indeed keep this model to myself and not share it. I can at least take pride in the work itself and what I learned and apply it to something else!

Thank you!

4 Likes
6

I guess when I go to design something I have to keep this in mind (AI summary):

3D Model Publishing: Core Definitions

Remix

  • A modified version of an existing model where the original design is still clearly recognizable.
  • If the model would not exist without the original STL, it’s a remix.
  • Examples: size or tolerance changes, added holes or text, minor geometry additions, cosmetic tweaks.
  • Requires attribution and license compliance.

New Model (Inspired)

  • An independently designed model that solves the same problem but uses a different design approach.
  • If it was designed from scratch and does not rely on the original geometry, it’s a new model.
  • Examples: different geometry, different mechanism, different assembly or structural strategy.
  • Attribution optional but good etiquette.

Copycat

  • A model presented as new but functionally and geometrically the same as an existing one.
  • If a side-by-side or overlay looks nearly identical, it’s a copycat.
  • Examples: tiny dimensional changes, re-exported or smoothed STLs, cosmetic-only edits.
  • Often violates licenses or platform rules.

Rule of thumb:

  • Same model = remix
  • Same problem, different solution = new
  • Same solution, pretending it’s different = copycat
7

Copyright only applies to creative expression. There is no copyright in the functional aspects of designs. Patents can apply to the functional aspects of designs. But the solution must be novel. These basic rules eliminate the intellectual property claims of a huge number of 3D models. Despite that fact, the 3D printing community is pretty active in protecting the claims of designers, even if the basis for those claims is often questionable. So your practical problem is the community. You may have a legal right to do it. But that doesn’t mean you won’t get banned.

3 Likes
8

I have to agree. There is a fine line between protecting yourself and infringing on others. Intent is key, but of course that is a hard thing to judge.

When it comes down to function, when there is only a few ways to do something, there is going to be overlap. This is just natural. People are looking for the simplest, best, and most efficient way to do something. Even replicating real world objects. Some people act like their idea is marvel, while in actuality, it is all a copy of mass manufactured products.

For example, The Ridge Wallet

All of these are almost exactly the same. And more copies will be made. Then you have people claim that they are “First” and they should have the rights. While in reality, the only person that has legally enforceable rights is Ridge themselves.

So should we consider all of them remixes?

The line is very blurry, and frankly, most people are standing on the line. You can claim you are on one side, while another person will claim you are on the other side. But the entity that makes the decisions does not know where the line is either.

2 Likes
9

What irritates me the most are people who make a 3D model of a copyrighted work and then sell it. Taking something like the USS Enterprise from Star Trek and turning it into a (albeit very good and detailed) model and then selling it online for $20 or whatever is absolutely wrong. Technically, just giving it away is infringement as well (see this with some IP where people incorporate characters or ships into games and the copyright owner takes down the mod or total conversion), but that doesn’t seem nearly as bad as literally making a buck off of someone else’s original ideas.

Making derivative works for personal use is legal in the US as far as I know, but distributing them is not.

Then there’s the entire question around patents and trademarks, which provide entirely different protections which may apply. Luckily, I am not a lawyer and I don’t need to spend weeks reading up on this subject. I just follow the simple rule of “if I’m using someone else’s work in any way to make it, don’t distribute it unless they say it’s OK”.

1 Like
10

Don’t be surprised - many people have been caught. However, they don’t write about it because they feel ashamed or the lawyer’s letter prohibits them from doing so. We can even pinpoint the exact spot where it started going downhill: As long as 3D models are offered for free, they are often considered fan models and fall into a grey area. However, as soon as people started making money from them, lawyers got involved.

Some have been hit pretty hard, especially when it comes to Lego. They regularly visit MakerWorld to check things out. This is not because of the bricks themselves, which are public domain, but because of those who use the logo and name.

Just because you see people selling it doesn’t mean they won’t receive a letter from a lawyer afterwards. It’s just that you never hear anything more about the cases. The same applies to other companies, of course. They regularly browse MakerWorld, but only if there is a clear profit motive behind it, as this makes it legally watertight.

MakerWorld is already doing its best to protect its users and blocks words such as Lego, Bluey, and Labubu. However, the last person to be caught made the mistake of putting the original Lego logo on their cover images.

2 Likes
11

Someone did this to me. Created a carbon copy and then claimed repeatedly that he didn’t download my files. That may be true on a technicality, but it was obvious to me and the half dozen separate people who first alerted me to it that he had copied from my photos right down to the outlines and features. When I called him out on it, that’s when the “but I didn’t download it” excuse came up :roll_eyes:

Try tracing Apple’s logo and claiming you made it and see how far that gets you, buddy.

2 Likes
12

I didn’t even realise that there was a debate over this.

In my mind at least a remix is where you change an existing model and inspired by is where you create an original mesh based on something you’ve seen elsewhere.

like with music. if you recut or tune a track it’s a remix.

13

That is what I started as thinking, but I will add Copy to my thought process from now on because I think it was a good clarification on how to think about this topic. In my specific case when I honestly examine what I had done with regard to my bottle cap opener, I had took the original model and used it to sketch out my version. I matched the overall shape and design almost to a tee. Because I falsely locked down my thinking process to “inspire vs remix” I failed to recognize that even though I meticulously drew out my version I was literally just copying the original. If had approached the subject as “Copy, Remix or Inspired” I would have never had to ask my question in the first place.

The whole discussion has inspired me though! I have gone back to the drawing board and started all over again. I kept in mind the existence of bottle openers and the method of how to open a bottle, as in it needs a hole with teeth to grip the cap and a handle to turn it with, and worked out my own way of accomplishing the task. I think with a bit more tweaking I have now reached the point when I can call what I have made my very own, and while inspired by the original, mine has its own way of solving the same problem. I had felt pretty proud of the first attempt, and still am at my effort, but this attempt will not only have the same work but will be even better for my working it out from the beginning instead of starting from copying something else!

14

I would tend to reserve copy for a purposeful attempt to recreate something, and ripped off if the person doing intended for their one to be mistaken for the original.

15

If for my own personal use, I would agree. However if I had gone ahead and shared my version would I be able to argue that I was not intending to be mistaken for the original or that I was profiting (all 5 points or what have you that I would earn) from the work of the original? I couldn’t convince myself, and I doubt I would convince anyone else.

It is all part of the learning process, I guess. I remember copying my favourite comic characters when I was a little kid, tracing them out at first and hand drawing them as I got used to the basic shapes. There was nothing wrong with that! At some point or another I had to stop copying and start creating my own characters. I got lazy back then and never did. I don’t want to be lazy now though, and what to make my own creations now.

16

When searching MW for common type items I will usually disable the “standard digital” license in the search filters (or rather select all the other types). This eliminates listings that think they have re-invented the box and wheel to a significant-enough level to warrant protecting their precious design. I find this also typically increases the quality and focus of the search results. Funny how often someone with an actual original design will share it freely while most of the derivative copycats will claim copyright. Chasing the Internet Points and Cracker Jack prizes I guess.

This copy vs. original debate/issue/conundrum has existed since forever. There is nothing special about “3D model” design in that respect. In fact all physical item design is in 3D – even pencil on paper is a type of FDM. But of course with less tangible things as well like music or software. If moral guidance doesn’t suffice then studying copyright and patent law is a good alternative (also trademarks, if applicable).

:heart: Open Source FTW!

-Max

17

I started setting mine to the standard digital license because people would just take my models and dump them straight onto other repositories. I’ve had a few argue with me about it too, like just because I made it means I have no rights to it…

Like yeah, I provide my work for everyone to access, but that doesn’t excuse the entitlement some people have.

I don’t think you’re talking about me with your comment, but it’s a subject I’ve come up against a few times and just wanted to state that the use of the standard digital license has it’s place. Well, at least I feel it does. I recognize there’s a lot of bad copying and licensing too. Bad players can mess anything up.

3 Likes
18

I am, and always have been, Team Open Source. I am a big advocate, but no longer on MakerWorld. My attitude changed fundamentally after too many users simply re-uploaded my work without giving me any credit.

Open source is supposed to encourage others to improve and build on it The idea is to develop it further as a team. However, this is hardly possible on MakerWorld, where too many people are simply chasing points and confusing open source with “I’ll just steal everything.”

Open source is highly effective in the world of programming, but not on MakerWorld.

2 Likes
19

I probably should have left out “precious” in that sentence… lol. Sorry, didn’t mean to trigger anyone.

Most of the other license types require attribution to the original author. So if someone is just posting a copied design somewhere else they’d still be violating the license if they don’t at least give attribution. Same as if they just ignore the more restrictive licensing and post it anyway. :person_shrugging:

No argument there!

Cheers,
-Max

20

Genuine question, not trying to be cheeky… did changing the license help prevent this? Just curious because as I just said many OS licenses require attribution already, so copying w/out it would, I’d hope, be grounds for a takedown. Or does MW not bother enforcing “attribution” clauses?

Thanks,
-Max

21

Yes, almost always. Why? Because people who just want to earn quick points are usually lazy. They just grab the low-hanging fruit. This makes my models unattractive. They tend to go for models that allow remixing.

2 Likes