I was wondering what the best way to get in touch with someone who maybe interested in making a few dollars to remix a few models. Not major, adding magnets to an existing gridfinity model, adjust a F360 hole diameter etc.
Reach out to the designer.
Adjusting holes can be done in studio with negative parts pretty easily if that is all you are trying to do.
3 Likes
It sounds like you are meaning “remix other peoples’ models” and not your own?
Just in case you aren’t aware, you need to pay close attention to the licenses the models you want remixed are published under. Not all models can be legally remixed if you are eying publishing or selling the remixes.
People here are sensitive to how their models are used (and rightfully so) and monitor here and other sites for infringing models. If you publish here for the points/perks, you can be penalized big time if remixed models violate original licenses.
I only point this out since paying for remix work kind of implies some way to recoup the investment. If it’s all for your own use, @CincinnatiDesigns has the best answer - contact the designer and see if they might not be willing to add the features you need.
5 Likes
To be accurate, you can’t legally remix models for your own use either unless the license permits derivatives.
I mention this only because you used the word “legally” and this seems to be covered by exactly the situation OP is proposing, having someone make modifications (derivatives) of a licensed work.
So although someone modifying a download for their own use is such a common infringement few people would think twice about it, straying into the realm of paying someone else to modify a model is maybe something someone should think about first.
And I’m sure someone is going to say:
“No one who publishes a 3d model is going to care if you modify it for your own use.”
No one is likely to, I certainly can’t imagine a situation where someone would. But that doesn’t make it legal, and you don’t get to take away what you judge as “silly” rights from creators because you can’t imagine why someone would claim that right.
This also applies to people who say things like “most creators” won’t care if you do X. It’s not an election, the rights of minority creators are not governed by the majority, even if 99% of the creators say something is OK that doesn’t affect the rights of the 1%.
4 Likes
Good clarification! Thanks!
1 Like
From my experience the designer is usually happy to help out.
If they ae unable to help then Fiverr is a pretty good option. I actually had someone turn a picture into a model at a very reasonable price.
1 Like
Does anyone here happen to have a few moments to help me understand merging a model with a container, or know if a remix on maker world is the way to go? I swear I get dumber every year.
I had this debate with a vendor on MyMiniFactory.
They conceded that modifcation had to be allowed, as the slicer will modify the geometry as it does its work (e.g. thin walls, remove overhangs etc)
I’d be interested to see if this has ever gone to court and how it was resolved, at least in the context of 3d print. I’m aware of how it’s gone w.r.t software, at least in the laws of the places I live in.
edit: Of course this applies to private use, where the modified model is not republished.
I think geometry in the context of 3D model is about the shape, which will not be altered by changing the number of wall loops in slicer.
In any case, paying someone, here or on Fiverr, to do remix only works if both remix and commercial use are allowed by the original creator. If any one of these two are not allowed, the one who’s doing the remix also violates the license and is making money from it.
If the idea is to try to shift the blame to the one who is doing the remix so that the model will not be taken down, then it won’t work. Both the payer and payee are party to the infringing activities and can be held accountable.
BTW, there used to be a user with a similar name, Woogie or something, who didn’t believe creators have rights to their models and made quite a wave fighting others on the forum. Wonder if this is a new account from the same person made for the purpose of posting this.
So is resizing for your personal use the same as a remix? I thought a remix was taking the design and altering it in a meaningful way for either personal or commercial?
I often resize things for my miniatures so now I am curious.
If one downloads a free model or pay for a model and resize it to print a copy for personal use, there won’t be problem, something that people are doing. Obviously this is something that one can do themselves and no money changed hands with a third party,
Commercial use will only be ok if the license allows commercial use.
1 Like
So, this brings something to mind Costco does on a regular bases. I worked at a small shipping company up in Seattle, and we where Costco’s go to international (Direct to China) shipper. Costco would find a hot seasonal item early in the season, ship a copy of it over to China, have the designers there alter it to the edge of the law, manufacture it 20K times, package it as Kirkland Brand, and ship it back.
They get called on it all the time, but so far nothing has stuck that I know of.
For me personally, if there is a design i like, I use it and anywhere from 3 to 20 other sources to get something that really speaks to me. Then I print/paint/sculpt/draw/build/forge it. I don’t call it remixing, I call it a concept adjustment. something that the original piece wanted to be, but wasn’t given a chance.
Also, from my understanding, if you change something enough that people say it’s related, but not the same, your golden. i.e. the model is packing a pistol and aiming down range. in the remix the model is waving fellow troopers forward. Though the face and body remain the same, the body position changes it enough that the model is a “new thing” and thus not covered under copy.
It is a remix.
It is still a remix if one starts with another person’s model.
If the original creator allows remix then it is ok. Otherwise, it is not up others to decide what the model “wanted” to be.
The orginal creator already decided what their creation “wanted” to be and if s/he doesn’t want others to take advantage of their labor and model and change it and then call it their own, then his/her rights should be respected.
1 Like
So, normally I would shrug and say whatever. However, you have taken my word out of context and manipulated then to express an idea I was not attempting to convey. I take great offence to such action.
With that, I will respond in two forms. The first to quote a greater mind then mine. The second to demonstrate how proclamations fail to see the most fundamental part of creativity.
-
From Thomas Jefferson
The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, Document 12Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
-
Taking the example of the model of a man charging an enemy:
Did you invent the triangle?
Did you invent the square?
Did you invent the circle?
Did you invent the face of a man?
Did you invent the form of a mans body?
Did you invent the form of a gun?
Did you invent the the fold of cloth?
Did you invent the the emotional expression of rage and fear?
No, you did not.
Yet you uses all of these without license or accreditation to those who have legal claim to their creation. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, each a flea with a mighty proclamation of righteousness.
If an artist is inspired by the creation of another, it is the natural right of that artist to create what their inspiration.
For me personally, if there is a design i like, I use it and anywhere from 3 to 20 other sources to get something that really speaks to me.
“Also, from my understanding, if you change something enough that people say it’s related, but not the same, your golden”
The toilet paper dispenser was patented on September 15, 1891 (and later in December 1891) by American inventor Seth Wheeler of the Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company.
Some 12,000 (+/- 100,000) toilet paper dispensers have been invented with thousands of variations of those. How many people give credit to Seth Wheeler.
Don’t take people out of context. It’s rude. It’s deceptive and demonstrates a willingness to be fundamentally dishonest.
Would I use your original file to create a design? No. Nor would I recommend ANYONE do so. Would I use an image of your design for the basis of my own design? How many people have copied Leonardo? How many people did Leonardo copy? And if you say, “No, one”, I will respond that he did his apprenticeship and copied his masters work until he developed a “look” that we now attribute to him alone, even though it was his master influence and the influence of his fellow apprentices that he copied.
In the end: We all stand on the shoulders of giants, each a flea with a mighty proclamation of righteousness.
Humility is our only inheritance.
I didn’t take anything out of the context. You said you “use it”, there is no more context to that. You used the file, it is a remix, no matter how much changes you made on it. It won’t be golden.
Now, you brought up another concept. If one looks at a model and makes a model from scratch, it is still infringing on the original creator’s rights.
Your arguments are typical of those who try to justify infringing on others’ rights. Bring in Thomas Jefferson and using big words like “humility” won’t change anything. They have been rehashed many times before on this forum and need no more rebuttal.
I have responded in a person message since this has now become an argument as does not belong in the public eye.
And just for clarification, as an Artist, i would never, cut up the Monalisa and use bits and chunks to create my own artwork. I would sit down, create a rough sketch and take it back to my studio and make something completely new.
As for someone else’s model, again, sketch/then my own concept.
Get paid to change someone else work. Not worth my time no matter the money.
The message has no need to be private. Here’s your message.
Like I said in my response above, it doesn’t matter if you used the file as is, or looked at the model and made one from scratch. It is still infringing on the original creator’s rights.
Also one thing we should all do is to argue on our views’s merit and not accusing the other side of things like political agenda, dishoesty, etc.
At least this is something we both agree on.
Yay! More walls of text with little to nothing to say.
Maybe someone should bring up pie?
Taking inspiration from another model is fine, thats not a remix.
Taking someone’s model and recreating it, now thats a remix, even if you changed it to fit your own purpose.
Fact is that none of this conversation matters if you are not posting the “remix” or whatever you want to call it. If you are modifying a model for personal use, no one cares either way.