My design was stolen. What should I do?

MakerWorld
1

Hi everyone, I’m here to ask for advice and opinions from those who may be more knowledgeable than me.
In the last few days, I’ve come across a user who decided to take one of my designs and publish it using my photos and description, and even put my name in the title.

There’s a very important preamble: The design in question is one of the “famous” UNO card game boxes that was removed on March 19, 2026, at Mattel’s request, which, of course, I didn’t object to. That’s fair enough; the trademark is theirs, and I don’t have the rights to use it. I could say that my intent was simply to create a box to replace the easily broken cardboard box, but that’s not what I’m writing, it doesn’t matter!

After this “event,” which nevertheless caused quite a stir, almost all the boxes bearing the UNO logo disappeared, only to slowly reappear. This, too, is an issue that should be addressed differently. Right now, it seems like MakerWorld doesn’t care, as they clearly generate significant traffic.

That said, I tried to contact MakerWorld, explaining that the project is mine, as also highlighted by the person who posted it, but I was answered, as always, with the classic copy-and-paste of unanswered replies!

Of course, it bothers me that someone is using one of my projects just to score points.

MakerWorld tells me to report the model, but whatever reason I give for reporting it, it is ignored.

2

Then let others report it as well.

3

I reported his model repost to Makerworld, IPR Center AND Mattel. Copyright and License violations are very important to stay on top of. If we don’t, and it gets out of hand - what do you think will happen? Starts with one policy, then 3, then 10, then before you know it - your printing fun is gatekept behind even more rules and regulations and it just won’t be a fun experience.

4

For context, you might want to point out that you were even fair enough to inform the user who simply stole it, and that he refused to react:

Screenshot 2026-07-16 162636
Screenshot 2026-07-16 1626362115×1444 258 KB

This is a classic example of someone trying to score some quick points while claiming to be doing something good.

But here’s the big problem: as bad as that is, it’s going to be difficult because, as you said, you don’t have the rights to the logo. In fact, you don’t even have the rights to the box itself. That’s the typical problem when you’re working in the gray area.

If you design something 100% on your own, these kinds of issues are usually resolved right away. But since, strictly speaking, your box is a remix, it always gets complicated. In fact, the topic of these boxes keeps coming up time and again because, somehow, no one ever knows who the original inventor is - it’s no longer traceable.

However, the following are covered by copyright: your photos, the 3mf file itself, and the text description you provided.

Edit: I also let MakerWorld know, so to speak, but I didn’t go the “stolen design” route - I took a different approach… If I receive a response, I’ll post it here.

5

Thank you, and I’d like to clarify a couple of things.

I was probably the first “idiot” to share the project. I made it with my son, for his cards, and I shared it without “thinking.”
Shortly afterward, I was inundated with requests for further customizations; I made hundreds, but, I repeat, I had no right to do so.

It’s true, my box is a remix of a Hugo project, and he’s always been very clear about it. I’ve never taken credit for the box itself; I just customized it (in hindsight, I was wrong).

What’s a bit infuriating is the reporting and management system; you’re practically always ignored.
Now, I don’t want to play the cop, but basically, if Mattel doesn’t report it (in this specific case), MakerWorld doesn’t take a stand; they just reject it.

6

Ok but this is just mafious brigading, doesn’t solve the root of the problem…that’s posted as cc so I let it go. Not like the atrocious standard licences from copyrighted stuff…

7

The license was changed today, after my comments I expect - because it 1000% was Standard License.

8

It looks like it has been taken down.

9

I just got the message: The report was successful. :+1:

Screenshot 2026-07-17 081046
Screenshot 2026-07-17 0810462040×306 31.3 KB

Now I can explain how I reported it. Otherwise, people will just keep changing it as they read along. It wasn’t labelled as a remix - the original designer was Hugo and he didn’t credit the original creator. This is a licence violation.

Sometimes you have to report it differently than as “stolen”.

Just make sure you label your boxes properly, too - otherwise, they’ll disappear just as quickly as the other person’s box. It’s best to block this user right away, because you can be almost certain that otherwise he will report all your models. If you block him, that won’t be possible anymore.

10

As I said on my profile, the ones that derive from that model are absolutely all remixes.
I’m not blocking it for now, let’s see what happens!

You’re right, but it’s clear that, at this time, there’s no way to solve the root of the problem. Or at least I don’t see how to do it if MakerWorld doesn’t cooperate.

11

I see it’s already down due to incorrect upload type. But there’s a few things to mention.

First is you actually allow people to reupload your files under the licenses you choose (CC BY-NC-SA), so long as they use the same license and attribute you. So they didn’t actually “steal” your model, you allowed it via the license.

With that said, that doesn’t give them the right to steal your photos, they are your copyrighted property and the license only applies to the model(s).

Also, even though you allow it, Makerworld technically doesn’t allow re-uploads with no changes. They only allow originals or remixes, which they don’t actually specify what constitutes a “significant” change to qualify as a remix. But the enforcement of this is mediocre at best.

Not all platforms have this restriction either, so just as an fyi, your files can be reuploaded to other places by others. If that’s not something you want, you should reconsider the license (when you’re not required by a share-alike license for remixes).

Lastly, you said it’s a remix of Hugo’s design, which is under a SDFL-C license. If that’s what it was when you downloaded it to remix, then you yourself are violating the original license terms by using the incorrect license yourself.

Now, I don’t know if Hugo changed it or not, if they had it as a CC BY-NC-SA license before when you originally downloaded it, then you’re fine and not violating anything since licenses can’t be revoked. But if that was always the license they had it under, you should go through and update your models to the correct license and correctly add them as a remix to the original.

There’s an important difference between the two licenses, being that his SDFL-C license requires remixes to not only use the same license, but the difference is they can only be uploaded to Makerworld. Your licenses (potentially) falsely grant others permission to upload to other platforms.

@CincinnatiDesigns Feel free to chime in why you think any of this is wrong, or whatever the reason is for the “tumbs down”.

12

I just want to point out that Hugo pops onto the forum from time to time, so it’s a bad idea to speak on his behalf when he’s already posted on the topic himself. He also described in detail when a remix is allowed and when it is not. Also, what his position on this is.

All you had to do was type “hugo” into the search bar or just ask…

13

I’m not speaking on anyone’s behalf. I’m stating facts about the licenses and Makerworld policies, and I clearly gave context as to IF he changed it, no reason for me to ask them.

It also wouldn’t matter what he (or anyone) says in regards to people being allowed to reupload CC licensed models. You seem to think I’ve said mteomarch can’t make remixes? Which is not even close to what I said.

14

A good place to start would be to read what Hugo himself has to say about it. Then read the thread again.

That’s the root of the problem: Why don’t you know that? Because you didn’t look it up; you made an assumption without checking first.

You kind of stumbled into this topic without doing any research first. The topic isn’t new. You’ll find several topics on this subject. :+1:

I can already see you typing after just a minute. Please think first, do your homework, and then post. You don’t even take a minute to read my comment. I post, and immediately see you start typing.

15

You’re completely missing my point. What Hugo has said in any posts is completely irrelevant.

OP uploaded a model, it was taken down for reasons unrelated to Hugo. Someone then reuploaded it and OP said it was stolen. It wasn’t, they had it under a CC license, which allows reuploading.

You’re trying to pull me into something irrelevant to what I’ve said.

16

The whole post is built around assumptions and what about isms.

It overexplains and doesnt directly address the topic of the thread.

And you seem to have a misunderstanding about licenses.

17

What’s there to address? It was already taken down, he doesn’t need advice as to how to get it removed.

”I see it’s already down due to incorrect upload type. But there’s a few things to mention.”

The very first line, and no, it’s built around license terms. There’s no assumption there beyond the IF statement I made regarding IF the original one was changed after OP downloaded it.

18

You didn’t take a moment to consider my comment or use the search function. You started typing the moment it went online. Not even a minute. I’m not going to discuss this on that basis.

It’s also disrespectful to reply immediately without taking a moment to consider what the other person has written or just briefly reading the new information they have given you.

It’s simply better to take a break, during which you’ll have time to form your own opinion once you’ve read up on the topic.

19

I could tell that if I make a remark this argumentation would happen by the way you wrote. Thats why I just gave it a thumbs down.

Please proof read your above post again.

20

It doesn’t matter what Hugo has, had or will have the license set to or what they’ve said in any thread at any point. My referencing it is a separate point regarding OPs uploads and whether they violate the original license or not. Again it was an IF statement, and IF it doesn’t apply to OP, he can ignore it. It’s not that hard.
It doesn’t change the fact that the remix used a CC license which allows reuploading (again, as already stated, Makerworld technically doesn’t)