Right now the rules are applied randomly, some users can do certain things and others can’t, no more and no less, it is a simple model, but it helps the community and has thousands and thousands of downloads, it has been removed because someone reported it, and it really suits them to remove it because it is money they save, but applying the rules randomly and arbitrarily is not fair.
Edit: I’m removing my response to Eleazar as this thread is drifting from @Dr_Operator’s original post. Eleazar, you should appeal the point removal.
I only print through Bambu Handy. And I’m not an exception, a lot of people raised this issue in another thread.
I already claimed it, I’ll have to live with it, basically hahaha, I’m not commenting anything else about it, this thread is about another topic, you’re right.
They previously stated the rules.
I wrote them above.
^ They were purposely unclear about the other factors.
You misread my post. I said the boosts came with an uptick in traffic/viewership and explicitly said I had not posted anything new.
I totally understand you don’t get boosts from uploading models and that the boosts are from other users who have them to give away.
I posted the anecdote because others were saying their models weren’t showing up in search results while I am seeing a slight uptick in traffic and activity (and boosts) without having done anything of note to cause it.
That’s why I was just wondering if they might have changed up the algorithm in some way. Total speculation and not even sure it’s related.
But the boosts are all from peeps and not the system.
You are correct, I clearly didn’t read it correctly.
My first thought was, “Why did he not understand this?”
It turns out that I didn’t understand what you said.
It was this part. It does make it hard to understand the difference between receiving Boosts and receiving Boosts!
I wish there were a different phrase for each side of it.
I see your point. Unfortunately without saying who the boosts come from or why it is confusing. And they could have come from printing other people’s models but I’ve only been printing stuff I design totally separate from here/MW.
But nope. It’s not due to anything I did that I know of. The boosts were just user donations and the traffic increase wasn’t huge - just there. Which I assume was why the uptick in boosts. The boosts were actually just ancillary information and what prompted me to look at the stats since I don’t get that many.
Then when I saw this thread where people were seeing models hide and traffic go down, it seemed to fit as the other side of that pancake since any changes to the algorithm are probably a zero sum game/gain across us users. For every loser there could be a corresponding winner. It’s one of the rare times I might have won?
So I’ve had a response & it makes sense. It’s a bit of a shame though as if that’s how the rules will go then quote a large chunk of files can’t appear in search. I am unsure why mine specifically & not so many others have been removed though.
I received the same response as thisnoise, but had some follow up questions. I asked who the payment provider was, which of my models were affected and if it will have any impact on point redemption.
The payment provider question was completely ignored, and they didn’t actually tell which of my models specifically are affected, but I did receive assurances that redemption won’t be a problem.
You’ll notice too that in the first response from support (pic uploaded by thenoise) that they talk about how to avoid problems with models you upload in the future, while this reply leaves the door open for your models to be restored, offering suggestions on how to adjust the models.
Their use of the term ‘existing points’ had me seeking further clarification so I asked: “You said this won’t affect my ability to use my existing points, but what about points earned from those models in the future? Even though the visibility is reduced, they will still get the odd boost and download target. Will those points be able to be redeemed?” This is the response that I received
This reply seems to contradict the response I received earlier, and if true, this is where I believe Bambu will have issues. I think it’ll be pretty hard for Bambu to justify telling their users that they can’t redeem their points earned on these models because of an IP claim that apparently came from Bambu themselves, and not the IP holders, yet they will continue to leave these models on their website so they can continue to profit from them by way of filament sales and such.
Hopefully that’s not the case and it’s just reduced visibility, which means reduced points, until you can fix your model. And if your model is deemed too infringing, and un-fixable, then you just use the visibility circumvention technique outlined in the initial support response “To ensure your designs remain accessible, we suggest organizing them into collections and sharing direct links of the collections to your followers.”
For the record, I don’t believe there is any malicious intent on behalf of Bambu. I think this was done as an alternative to flat out removing a model and immediately sending a user -10k (or whatever) into the hole. This way it gives the user a chance to resolve the issue, but it was poorly implemented imo. If there are IP concerns with these models and points earned on them aren’t redeemable, then they should be moved to private instead of being left up to continue to promote MakerWorld, even if it’s in a reduced capacity.
Some things that don’t make sense:
Who is the mysterious Payment Provider? Seeing as how Bambu doesn’t sell their gift cards for actual money, are gift cards not taken care of in house? Which would make the payment provider Bambu themselves. And if it’s not them, then who? Paypal?
If the PP isn’t Bambu themselves, then I find it very odd that a 3rd party company like Paypal or whomever, seemingly has arbitrary control over which models are visible on MakerWorld and which models aren’t.
No consistency in affected models. I have three very similar Star Wars models, an AT-AT, AT-ST, and AT-RT, with only one of them being infringing apparently.
Smells of copyright claims
If you get flagged, the first step is to remove it from public view as [something/someone] reviews the legitimacy of the claim. Changing the name of it from Madball to surlysphere is pretty creative but like… yknow… unless you can prove you’re a division of CloudCo Ent LLC it shouldn’t come to too much of a surprise… take the L and move on or prepare to do the fight for fair use if you think you can claim it
Thanks. I did that as that is what support suggested. Changing the name of the model and characters in the description and such. Support implied that the issue is resolvable by doing so, and we’ll see if that’s the case.
I agree, this is what should have been done instead of just leaving my model up without notifying me at all, especially if the issue is unable to be resolved.
EDIT: Also, I’m completely fine with my models being removed entirely. The Madballs coasters were created to highlight how easy it is to create super detailed coaster using Bambu Labs Image-to-Keychain tool.
lol wow
It’s always interesting to see how various cultures approach fair use. Not sure that small veneer of credibility changes it, but given the everything going on in the world, I don’t think anyone but nintendo and disney are committing any resources to enforcing anything. If I print a pikachu and call it an “electric rat toy” it would fail fair use unless I also recreated the art.
Oh wow…
I find this quite peculiar… A payment provider should have no part nor say in “potential IP infringements”. Payment provider job is to act as intermediary between one side and another in delivering payments. That’s all. They should neither know nor care what’s being paid for, by whom and for what purpose.
In terms of IP infringements - there are fair use laws in multiple countries. In many cases it’s possible that it’s enough to publish a fan work for free is enough for “fair use” to kick in and therefore model doesn’t infringe. If payment provider action infringes on fair use, it’s on payment provider…
Again, If that’s case, then the models shouldn’t be visible at all, notification should be given about any violation and steps to resolve the issue shouldn’t be relayed to users if the issue can’t be resolved.
snip> it’s enough to publish a fan work for free </snip
From makerworld’s perspective, they are not free. Makerworld is distributing cash equivalent rewards to uploaders via the boost and exclusive schemes. Monetary value is changing hands. They have to play by some rules.
snip> Again, If that’s case, then the models shouldn’t be visible at all, notification should be given about any violation and steps to resolve the issue shouldn’t be relayed to users if the issue can’t be resolved./snip>
And this shenzhen based corporation gave your their version of how to “correct” the intellectual property violation 
With as free, fast and loose all of these repositories have been with theft lately I can kinda see why these outside payment processors would not want to be tied to it in any form.
I wonder if the recent Lego or WarHammer crackdowns were a result of the payment processor getting some heat and they had to tell Bambu to start curtailing any future complaints.
Because there was no IP claims made. As shown by Thisnoise, some of your models must have been flagged by the payment provider.
The payment provider is not the IP holder so it can’t file for IP infringement. But it is possible that these payment providers are now under pressure from big IP holders to do their part to curb infringments.
The suggestions that MW made seem to be on how to avoid being flagged by payment providers, which is interesting 
Wait til these big IP holders all come putting pressure on the platforms including MW, like Lego has done.
Edit: IP holders putting pressure on payment providers first could makse sense since if a model gets payment, it clearly has gained financially.
MW may have relied on the payment provider to flag such models, or only act on models flagged by the provider. Yours are flagged while some others haven’t been yet.
Sounds like models are getting flagged as people redeem their points. That would explain why my Star Wars AT-ST was removed but other AT-ST models remain searchable.
