Paid to remix?

MakerWorld
22

I have been creating for over 50 years. I have taught art classes to both young, old and in between. there is a vast difference between copying and imitating. When we blur those lines we create a fundament block in development.

Disney has done this for the last 75 years all while stealing from others.
Corporations and business men who don’t have shred of creativity in their bones have propagated the idea that they alone should be the ones to profit off of creativity, all while hiring designers and artists at the lowest wage possible. The all of my art and designs are CC BY because people need freedom if they are to create. They only time I went after someone was when they tried to put a copyright on my work without alteration and call it their own. I took everything they had earned off it over a two year period and donated it to my local collage art program.

I will always credit and artist who’s work i display. If a painting of a bouquet of flowers inspires me to grab a bouquet and a vase, and paint, I will not credit the artist for the work because they didn’t do any of it. They simply had an idea that gave me an idea.

I moved it to a private message because standing on a street corner screaming at each other is weird.
We can come to an understanding or an agreement to disagree. privately and return to the public to say:
…I agree with him…
…I flat out disagree with him…

Will I listen to your thoughts, Always. Will I agree with you. ~Meh~ Will I always grant you the dignity of asking for clarification on a statement? Yes, because you are a human being and that is your right. Will I forces you to my option? That depends on how much you force other to yours.

@CincinnatiDesigns
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058 (Now this is remixing).

23

I don’t know what you have been doing for how many years have anything to do with what we are talking about.

I didn’t take anything out of the context, let alone for dishonesty or political agenda (what politics has anything to do with this anyway).

Your message is clear, you believe remix is ok, as long as the remix changes enough.

The post where you quoted Thomas Jefferson is full of the typical arguments that have been used by some others who have remixed others’ model when the licenses don’t allow it.

You can keep your view and I will keep mine. How about that?

24

Directing my response only to the above quote.

cool.

25

No. Thats just plagiarism.

Thats like putting a red dot on the Mona Lisa and calling it a new painting.

Thomas Jefferson would not approve.

26

IANAL…

I am curious at your take on this.
So MANY models on Makerworld have restrictive licenses like the “Standard License”.
And, they are models of things the “owner” doesn’t own.
Like poeple that post a figure of Batman. Guarantee they don’t have a license.
Or they create a model of a box with a hinge and a clasp and it is shaped to hold a particular item (like an iphone). They don’t own the iphone or the patent on “hinges”.

So, I understand that I shouldn’t take their STL and use meshmixer to modify it.

But what is the viewpoint on me cracking open a BLANK SLATE in fusion 360.
Creating a similar box from whole cloth, using some of their ideas and ideas from other places.
Maybe adding my own twists.
And then publishing it?

I don’t get how a person can “license” standard conceptual ideas or art work that they don’t own in the first place.

27

@CincinnatiDesigns So you think this is Pi…lagiarism?

28

I dont think there is a problem using PI for you own personal use, its when you open a PI shop and sell PI for money that is the problem.

29

@Rusty35 Are we talking about the whole Pi or just a peace of the Pi?

1 Like
30

So here is my big beef with copyright law (this only applies to US Copyright Law. I have no experience with other nations and do not speak to their statutes):

  • The 1790 Act: Originally set at 14 years, with a one-time renewal of another 14 years (totaling 28 years).
  • 1831 Act: Increased the initial term to 28 years while keeping the 14-year renewal (totaling 42 years)
  • 1909 Act: Extended the renewal term to 28 years, bringing the maximum protection to 56 years.
  • 1976 Act (Effective 1978): Overhauled the system to provide 75 years of protection from publication for corporate works. (This was directly lobbied for by Disney and his company, along with several other media companies.)
  • 1998 Act (Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998): Extended this further to the current 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. (Again, directly lobbied for by Disney Corp, and this time a plethora of media companies).

If we take the example of Batman (first appeared in Detective Comics #27 in May 1939) and applied the 1909 limit, then Batman would have been in the public domain in 1995. But then there was the 1976 Act that changed it to 75 years placing the Batman in the public domain in 2014. Oh, wait we still have the 1998 Act that changed it to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. Meaning that Batman will be in the public domain in 2035… or 2059… maybe. Oh and that does not include the perpetual copyright that corporations do by creating new “versions” ever few years that each have their own 95/120 year cycle.

See, the goal post keeps getting moved. The artists that originally created Batman are long dead. the only things that are benefiting from these copyright laws are powerful corporations that are run by individual who suffer from wealth hording. This was the condition of England in the later half of the 18th century. and something that the founding fathers clearly where weary of as demonstrated by the limits that they placed on copyright at the time.

With the ability to create coming into more and more roadblocks, it is inevitable that there will come a time when the only thing on TV is going to be the same shows we where watching in 2020.

31

I respect the effort, but jokes have to make sense to be funny.

32

I have no problem with those examples.

If you continue to use an asset and it is making you money, then you should protect it. Using your Batman example… it has constantly provided enjoyment for consumers and profit for holders since it was created. They have never stopped using it, it is still theirs.

Say the batman copyright ran out and someone made a movie. There is a strong possibility that if that movie is bad, then it will negatively effect movies of the past. In the digital age, art does not go away. Movies from the 80s are still relevant today, rights holders are still benefiting from them.

My opinion differs when an asset is abandoned or shelved.

Now patent law is different. Some people like to confuse that with copyright around here.

33
  1. Dad Joke are only funny to Dad and 7-10 year old kids. I am the former. I no longer have anyone in the later. Now I seek only victims. :rofl:
  2. If copyright profit shares on merch where capped after say 50 years to maybe 5% of the pre-tax net with a required open book, and a storage cycle of 25 years after 75th year to allow for different story’s to come to life (Batman is nearly 100 years old for crying outload. lets hear about differ super hero’s), I would drop my arguments in a minute.
    1. Seeing things like CrossGen Comics killed by Disney in the early 2k.
    2. Disney’s constant acquisition of cultural stories from around the world, including First Nation Peoples of the Americas
    3. the stagnation of the super hero narrative (Same hero’s from 100 years ago, different look, and barely a change in the story lines)
  3. All these have left a dislike for corporations being involved in media.
  4. Patent law applies to physical objects. Current law covers 3d models and their prints under copyright.
  5. There is currently no member of the legislative body that is looking at the relationship between Copyright/Patent law concerning 3D prints.
34

And before anyone starts jumping on me:

Superman: First appeared in Action Comics #1, with a cover date of June 1938 (released in April 1938). 88 years old.

Batman: First appeared in Detective Comics #27, with a cover date of May 1939 (released in April 1939). 87 years old.

Spider-Man: First appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15, with a cover date of August 1962 (released in June 1962) 64 years old (I’m itching 60, and there is no way I’d be swinging from a cane, let alone a lamp post).

Iron Man (Tony Stark) was first published in Tales of Suspense #39, which was released in December 1962 (cover-dated March 1963). 63 years old.

Lets retire the old farts and bring in something new and fresh! Star Wars was a start, but dang, that 49 years ago. Old man nap time….

Edit: I Almost forgot old Iron Undies.

35

A bad pun isnt a dad joke. Doesnt flow good enough.

Anyway, we are going to disagree about this and I am not looking for a copyright conversation between 2 people with little to no legal experience.

I dont particularly agree with the examples you gave. The main reason being, you complain that they are being overused and want something new, but taking away the rights to the asset creates other corp’s that will then attempt to profit off of it.

I enjoyed the comics that I read as a kid just as much as the movies that came out.

I will address you comment about patent law. For context, I hold 1 utility patent and 1 design patent. Patents do not just cover physical objects, they can cover processes, designs, compositions, and all that fun stuff. For example, McDonald’s holds a patent describing the way that they grill their burgers.

36
  1. The pain, the pain… OH the cruel pain!
  2. Agreed
  3. Actually: 3-5
    Utility Patents: These cover how an invention works and typically last for 20 years from the date the application was filed. To keep these active, you must pay maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after the patent is granted.
    Design Patents: These cover the ornamental look of a product. For applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, the term is 15 years from the date of grant. Older design patents (filed before that date) last for 14 years. These do not require maintenance fees.
    Plant Patents: These cover new and distinct asexually reproduced plant varieties and last for 20 years from the filing date.

None of the patents last 100 years. My issue with Copyright is that it was never intended to last this long and we are seeing results of it’s abuse. Example: I really would love to use some old time tin-can music from the 1920’s, ‘30’s, and early ‘40’s. in my video because I really enjoy the background pops, whistles, and that tinny sound that you get from early vinyl recordings, but they just got a patent extension taking them out of the public domain. Supposably this was to preserve this older music, but the majority of these works are owned by Sony Music Entertainment (Legacy Recordings), Universal Music Group (UMG), Warner Music Group (Rhino Entertainment), and Private Equity.
I think the biggest difference you and I have, is that I view that once something has run it’s course, it should be made available for general public use. I see this as an opportunity for older creatives to continue to create new content, something that is very common in the social media space today. In turn, it give the general public the opportunity to utilize these resources in new and creative ways. Thus the culture as a whole does not stagnate and die.

Now, if i am reading your opinion correctly, your view is that the IP should not just have the accreditation to the creator, but should also be legally use restricted to no one but the creator, the creators descendants, or the corporation that purchased the copyright in perpetuity? That’s a question mark.

For me, if this is true, it raises the question of how do you create when all the ideas have been created and locked down by entities that cannot die? And how do such things as fire, the plow, and basic foundations of math that all of our technology is based on? Does someone get to retroactively claim them under a corporate title forcing all of use who use such items to pay a copyright fee? if not, where do we as a society draw the line and say, “no more“ and what’s to prevent that line from being redrawn by a trillionaire 100 years from now?

I’m asking this not to be argumentative, but because I truly would like to understand your perspective on this.

And thank you for sharing your thoughts in a peaceful manner. i really do enjoy open peaceful discourse.

37

Again, Try not to confuse Patents and Copyright. In your example about the music, you referred to the extension as a patent extension.

Patents and Copyright are a similar concept, but they serve very different purposes.

But when do you consider that something has run its course?

In the example about the music, I can understand that a little bit. Although with the examples about the comic book characters, they are still active and being profited from. So if you are drawing the line for one thing, then why draw the line for the other thing.

That is where the renewals are coming in. If an asset means little to you anymore, then the company will not put in the effort and money to renew it. Then it will be in the public domain.

Yes, pretty much. If you put in the effort to maintain your hold on an asset, you keep the asset.

Be creative.

That is not controlled under copyright law. That is patent law. Patent law is 20 years max.

This has never been the case. Once something is in the public domain. It must stay in the public domain.

38

The slicer can and does actually modify the shape though. If it removes a small overhang, that is a change to the geometry. In the context of the vendor I had this “discussion” with the language in their licence prohibited modification of any kind. They later amended the language to allow modications required to print and rescale, and later on just used the platform’s standard license.

Note that many of the licenses in use today contains phrases like “yoiu may not host the file on other platforms” which is getting “interesting” now that we have cloud in printers, and browser-based cloud CAD programs.

39

You are absolutely correct. I am a moron, I should have said copyright to keep the example cohesive with the sentence just prior. I own that one, though I feel the spirit of the example should still stand after an edit (I will not edit the origin post so that there is no confusion or attempt to mislead).

Again, you are correct.

So lets use an example that could be placed under copyright, the Mona Lisa. Yes, Leonardo da Vinci died over 500 years ago, but the IP is still relevant to the the French Government/People and the world at large.

Now I’m going to address:

because they are actually a bound topic to this.

Further, I’m going to limit my statement to the Master Sound Recordings.

For decades, sound recordings made before February 15, 1972, existed in a unique legal gray area (this is when music was first recognized under Federal Law and given protections that where limited to the remaining life of the creator plus 50 years. This was given an extension of life plus 70 years in 1998 (Again, my gripe about moving goalpost and changing the rules mid game.)):

  1. They were not protected by federal law until recently, but they were often protected by a “patchwork” of perpetual state laws.
  2. Because many state laws had no expiration date, these recordings were essentially never in the public domain to begin with.
  3. The Music Modernization Act (2018) actually helped resolve this by finally bringing them under federal law, which set clear expiration dates and allowed the first wave of pre-1923 recordings to officially enter the public domain in 2022.

This is information quoted from Google.

Now, prior to the 1998 Act master Recordings had been granted a life term of 75 years by the 1976 Act. Master Recordings from 1920-1922 had already been placed in the public domain by 1998. The 1998 Act moved those recordings back into protected status for an additional 20 years. So, yes, there are examples of master recordings being yanked out of the public domain after entry. These recording are now back in the public domain for the time being, along with everything prior to 1925. (Source Public Domain Day 2025 | Duke University School of Law )

I do not believe that works should be given out freely, though I do grant all of my works a CC BY and anyone who commissions me is made fully aware of that, prior to the writing of the contract as well as at the time of the signing. But that is my choice. If an Artist wants to earn a living off their work, I agree. And if part of that income comes from the sale of a recording of their voice, I agree. My entire argument is, there needs to be hard limits on how long that IP is viable as a private asset and that limit cannot be changed. Stop moving the goal post, and I’ll grumble no more.

Edit: spelling
Edit: Added Source
Edit: And if I said Patent where I should have said Copyright, please forgive me for being a donkey’s hind end. I ment Copyright.

40

Actually, I’m kind of curios now what happened to people who used those recordings during that cycle? where they then forced into paying royalties? I’ll be dinging (Digging dig dig dig. fat fingers.) that up tonight.

Edit: (Digging dig dig dig. fat fingers.)

41

Probably, but I understand what you meant. I just think clarity is important.

The Mona Lisa is in the public domain. The IP is free. The physical ownership is in the hands of the French Republic.

That’s why you can buy things like this

https://www.artmajeur.com/simone-de-rosa/en/artworks/16572898/mona-lisa-censored

I do not think that moving the “goal post” is a malicous thing.

As a point I made before, it is bringing us into the modern times. With the internet, everything stays relevant for much longer than it used to.

In terms of the assets that we are posting on MW. I don’t think any of us would really care if in 20 or 50 years if everything went into the public domain. The platform will most likely not exist by then. In this case you have to live in the moment.