Is my model really copyright strike worthy?

[koifish]

TLDR; I uploaded an original customized desiccant box for my single wide filament dryer, and got hit with a copyright strike related to a model for the double wide version of my dryer.

I bought a Creality Space Pi filament dryer. I like to keep my TPU in there so i can dry it as it prints, but over time the RH% would go up.
So I figured I’d do the same thing I did with my AMS; print and install a desiccant box. I searched online for one first, but didn’t find any that fit & looked good.

I’ll explain later how my model came to be, but the gist is that I uploaded it to MakerWorld and it got hit with a copyright strike. I feel that this is unfair. One look at my model and the alleged copied model will show that it’s nowhere close to being a copy of that model. Additionally, I have since remodeled it from scratch with CLEARLY different design choices. If this ticket i have going on doesnt work out, i’ll try uploading the remodel.

Now, how my model came to be. I found a decent model for the Space Pi PLUS. This model inspired mine, but i never modified that model’s file, nor did i take any measurements from it.
The only similarities (other than design features that are simply required) are the grid shape being circular and the lid having slots.
Everything else is dictated by the dryer’s physical properties and dimensions.
I’m not sure if i can upload the 3mf/f3d file of my model here, but i can’t link to my upload since it was taken down.

TLDR; I uploaded an original customized desiccant box for my single wide filament dryer, and got hit with a copyright strike related to a model for the double wide version of my dryer.

Attached are some pictures of my box, as well as the double wide box.

And (edited) for clarity, this is my recent remodel of my original design:

Here is a side by side comparison in slicer. Yellow is mine, white is theirs:

(Keep in mind for these pictures that I tried to capture the essence of each model. I am aware that if you squint at the pictures of mine & theirs, they will look very similar.)

*Edited because original picture had the lid oriented wrong

[Henlor]

I’ve previously followed this topic on BL’s Discord.
And personally, I don’t even understand why this copyright claim was even successful at the first place. Even those two looks similar, this model is clearly NOT a remix for the other one.

@koifish was even kind enough to give credit as an inspiration to the other model. And I think that’s what gets him in the trouble in the first place!

It’s crazy too me to see an act of kindness, backfire to him like this.

Guys, what are you though on this matter?

[Chris1974]

If he made it from scratch it is his own. There are no patents on 3D print model ideas as far as I know…

[koifish]

Every detail of my model was made by me from measurements i took of the dryer i have. I can do a full scroll through of my fusion file showing exactly this, if that will help others weigh in on this.

[Hank]

I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t really give a correct statement.

Now the question isn’t whether it looks the same - the question is whether you used the STL.

If you drew it yourself from scratch and there is no patent on its box, it could even be that your rights have been violated.

But as I said, I’m not a lawyer. I am just extremely careful when demanding my rights, because the complainant also has rights.

So if someone make a mistake when filing the complaint, they can get also claimed. So it’s may not the stupidest thing to know and read a little bit about the difference between Patent, copy law and trademark law.

[Henlor]

You could patent it but it needs to be original (no prior art) so… Good luck to patent a desiccant box ^^`

[koifish]

I just want things to be right. I don’t care for the 10 points i got revoked when my model got struck down. I want others with a dryer like mine to be able to print a desiccant box for theirs too. I want others to be able to have their problems solved with my dozens of hours of work and testing. I don’t think it’s right for a copyright claim to be made on my model that’s clearly an original of mine, and thus prevent me from benefiting from something i put effort into.

[Hank]

And maybe just maybe the accuser has to prove in court that the other person stole the STL data and not the clamed person has to prove that he not drew it out of scratch.

On the contrary, being accused of theft is very easy to prove.

Makerworld certainly still has something like the rights on there own house rules - they don’t have to legitimize what they want to publish or not.

[koifish]

I’d think it’s obvious that there’s no amount of manipulation of their STL that could make it look like mine, or rather BE like mine since in this case the function is rather specific, so the form will be rather similar as well.
I mean to BE like mine as in same dimensions, tolerances, measurements, finger holes, same triangle count, etc etc i could go on and on.

[Chris1974]

Even if it was a remix I would still not consider it copywright worthy…

It is completely different from “the origininal”. This seems to be just a case of lazy review.

[Henlor]

You obviously create your own file.

And apart from the difference in dimensions.
From experience, adding chamfers/fillets on the STL is impossible on a mesh file. You would have to convert to solid first. And good luck convert this model with the mesh hole pattern and have something workable or even being able to convert it in the first place

[KanneKaffe]

Just something to the point, not to the tools: Enlarge the object (gCode or STL) to 300%. Create a raster from the object with a resolution of e.g. 0.2 to create the object. Another option: Extend and round off edges as required. Save as STL. Normally, the STL is dimensionally accurate (+/- 0.1mm approx.) in relation to 3D printers with FDM processes. Refining the mesh of the STL with a filter results in a smoother mesh. Scale down to original size.
Comes pretty close to the original, if it was printed, there will hardly be a difference to see. Especially with a 0.4 nozzle. Probably not with the grid pattern either, it will look the same after printing.

[lion7718]

If you just look at the pics & don’t read the story…I see remix.
Even if you you did re-model it, they still look the same…JMO.
In the end, our opinion doesn’t matter much…it’s Bambu’s.

[johnfcooley]

These are just questions, don’t read anything into them.

When did you post your model? I ask (and this isn’t a comment on the original topic) because the one in question changed the llicense after the 9th. There is a remix that seems to be grandfathered in because it was done before the license change.

I’m wondering if the striker changed the license just because of your file. If so that seems awfully shady.

You have the CAD files for the one you did? I would assume you presented those as proof to BL? I know it’s your design, just trying to understand the whole thing, from all sides.

[JayZay]

Hi @koifish

Welcome to the forum. Thanks for sharing your experience.

I’ve been reading so many issues regarding copyright that I can only conclude that it doesn’t work as it should. Not only 3D printing suffers from this.

In my opinion, this case isn’t a copyright violation. But here starts the issue: it shouldn’t be my or others’ opinions to judge. I agree with @Hank; copyright violations are legal crimes and thus not up to be decided on one’s opinion, yet on someone authorised to do so and hopefully with know-how.
I have no background in law, but setting rules that evaluate intellectual property ownership seems like a double-edged sword.

Also, what are the criteria?

@koifish

same dimensions, tolerances, measurements, finger holes, same triangle count,

This would be easier to assess objectively. However, one could easily copy a model and change a few parameters (e.g., triangle count).

Of course, it is unreasonable to expect every case to go to court. And even if it goes, how long it will take? How much will it cost? And what consequences can you impose? In MW, a published model can be linked to a financial value, which seems to help set the compensation; however, I doubt it is enough to support court costs.

I don’t have a solution… I doubt there’s a straightforward one. But some compromises need to be made soon.

[Hank]

Now what I really like is the Koifish906 note on the model.

Maybe change it to Koi906(dot)com or similar and redirect the URL you may will rent to the page you want (until you set up your own website).

As Koifish rightly note, he shouldn’t worry about the 10 points anyway. Just look at Spotify or other stories and wait until Bambulab brings in the harvest… At the beginning everyone was generously “motivated” to get things rolling. When things start rolling, the reins are tightened very quickly

And if Bambulab did this properly, they may would hardly have any models in Makerworld anyway. Commercial use of private licenses with publications (and a publication is “may” never a private action - because it becomes public and is so no longer private at all), trademark infringements and so on but if there is no plaintiff, there is no judge. Also the taxation of the points they give as income, as long as it is so small and no one is interested in becouse it is to small - if that changes the world will quickly look very different.

And of course you shouldn’t confuse a 5 hour job (even if you’re so inexperienced and it took 50 hours) with an job how get full trademark rights for a design that was created by hundreds of professionals and has full registration with the US copyright office too. e.g. a few keywords: Star Wars, Marvel, Walt Disney characters and so on… integrated into a whole world of fantasies and creatives such as lyricists, composers, etc. who bring the character to life and stimulate fantasies.

So there’s not much to discuss anyway.

[krellboy]

@koifish

I’ll explain later how my model came to be, but the gist is that I uploaded it to MakerWorld and it got hit with a copyright strike. I feel that this is unfair.

What you think is happening:
I designed a model from scratch. Although it may have a similar design to others models it is completely my work and not in infringement on them. Since this isn’t a copyright violation in the legal sense, a Makerworld copyright strike isn’t fair or warranted.

What is actually happening:
We cloned a popular model sharing site, including copying their licenses verbatim without understanding what they mean. We don’t want to spend money on lawyers to analyze intellectual property law and we don’t need to, since we just cloned the other site and as long as they were OK we’ll be OK. We’ll make up some rules and enforce them with penalties, it really doesn’t matter if they are consistent with the law, what matters is if they are aligned with our business objectives. One of those business objectives is to be able to employ relatively inexpensive unskilled labor to moderate the site, and they need simple instructions that don’t require much high-level interpretation. So we made a simple instruction for them that if one model is similar to another in appearance, form or function that is a “copyright strike” and you got one. It’s our site with our rewards and if you don’t like it don’t put your model here.

[Mirkosa]

It’s obviously different, they can’t protect the way something attaches to another object which was not even designed or created by them. Unless it’s a unique mechanism for attachment, which this is clearly not.

But none of that actually matters, because even if you did use their model and remixed it. They allowed remixes, as proven here:

That remix was uploaded only a week a go, the original model has been up for over 2 months. Which means they only just very recently changed their license. They cannot revoke the license from anyone that had it prior to that. So, even IF you had used theirs, you have full rights to remix and redistribute it in perpetuity (forever) if you had downloaded prior to the change.

So based on that alone, they can go kick rocks and learn how the licenses work before choosing to share models.

[krellboy]

@Mirkosa

They cannot revoke the license from anyone that had it prior to that.

This, totally. And if MakerWorld is thinking you needed to post your remix before the license change for it to be a “legal” remix they are wrong. But this is assuming that MakerWorld is enforcing their rules based on copyright law, they aren’t nor are they aren’t under any obligation to.

Here’s an explanation on MakerWorld’s evolution on copyright enforcement:

Revision 1)
Someone files a copyright complaint.
Remove model.
Legal risk, 0. Cost, 0.

Revision 2)
Someone files a copyright complaint.
Remove model.
Author files an appeal.
If there is any similarity at all, do not allow appeal.
Legal risk, very very low. Cost, very low, since “any similarity” is easy to judge.

[koifish]

Bambu has now told me that they deem my model to be a derivative, and thus it shall remain removed. BS
Currently redesigning it to have zero components to it that have similarity to the other guy’s. The only things that will have any resemblance will be stricly due to the physical constraints imposed by the dryer and objects interacting with it.