Proposed Fair Process for Handling Copyright Claims on Makerworld

MakerWorld
1

I created a ticket, provided all the evidence on the process, tools, sources I used. I managed to do a side by side comparison with the the other model.
After 3 days still no answer from Makerworld.

I always believed that Makerworld would protect its creators. But I found out that’s not the case.

@MakerWorld , hope you can hear our voice!

I’d like to propose an alternative process for handling potential copyright claims to better protect content creators from unfair takedowns:

  1. Don’t take down models immediately. Instead:
  • Block the ability to redeem points for the user.
  • Block the ability to modify the model during the investigation.
  • Allow creators 3-5 days to provide evidence showing that no copyright violation has occurred.
  1. Only if sufficient evidence isn’t provided within this timeframe, should the model be taken down.

This process would strike a fair balance between addressing copyright concerns and protecting creators from the misuse of copyright claims. Please consider this suggestion to ensure a more transparent and equitable approach.

1 Like
2

These things take time. I don’t think they have MW offices in the US, but if they do they’re most likely taking time off for Thanksgiving. Either way, they’re swamped right now. They’re trying to manage five contests, they’re working on Maker’s Supply stuff, working on the Q1 printer, and much more. Give them a few more days.

1 Like
3

Due to the sale, the new process of reviewing most accounts when they try to redeem their points and the historical failure to follow any reasonable window of support, it takes far longer than it should in any professional company.

That said, last Christmas they took two weeks to even respond to my requests, then continually delayed action by seemingly choosing not to read information requested.

I feel for you.

1 Like
4

@Zammer3D , @MalcTheOracle
let’s focus more on how to protects creators. I just modified the description and title and I hope you can provide a feedback on the proposal.

1 Like
6

I get that you’re frustrated by the inability to have your model published right now, but there are dozens of reports a day that they have to sift through. I do like your suggestion, and I think implementing it would decrease the headache for all parties involved.

1 Like
7

There are 2 sides to each coin - on one side you’ve got hit with (probably false) copyright claim. On the other, actual violations that can be proven by following what you suggest (proving that the model was made by the uploader) get a pass… I’ve seen waaaay more of the later than the former.

Since the copyright takedowns are report-based an arbitration panel could be presented to both reporter and accused, requiring both sides to provide evidence in timely manner and have the platform judge fairly based on provided evidence.

8

thanks for your feedback.
I want to stress on the principle of the presumption of innocence.

The model was taken down/deleted overnight, and I lost everything. Even if I manage to prove that I was in the right, I’ll have to reupload my model, losing all my downloads and print count data.

9

I think a successful appeal restores unjustly removed model along with points, but I can be mistaken.

10

Foremost, Makerworld protects Makerworld. They don’t like the idea of getting sued. 2nd, their current policy does protect creators. How would you like it if your model was copied and had it’s downloads sucked away for 5 days while the perp (who will likely never challenge it anyway) just sits there?

What percentage of copyright claims do you think that they get are erroneous? 10%? 5%? 1%? That’s what drives their current policy.

11

thanks for sharing your view.
What is done is done and I’m almost sure I’ll not get my model republished. I wrote this topic mainly with the hope to interact with @MakerWorld to share an idea on how to improve the process but they didn’t replied yet here neither in the ticket I created.
:slightly_frowning_face:

12

You need to be quite patient with them. Time’s measured in business days, not in minutes :wink:

2 Likes
13

based on the experience of other people I’ve to reupload the model.

Screenshot 2023-11-10 141353
Screenshot 2023-11-10 1413531584×1255 84.2 KB

14

4 business days are already gone.

15

That doesn’t sound like re-upload but edit of uploaded + publish (probably akin to turning model from private to public)? Dunno how that works.

16

I just read your ticket, WTF? It didn’t even occur to me that makerworld would allow copyright claims to be made against a model by anybody. I just went to the form and opened it, it doesn’t even ask “are you the rights holder?”.

That is just basic IP protection policy, it didn’t seem to occur to them that they only should be processing takedown requests from the rights holder, not just any joe schmoe off the internet. Let me guess, they simply copied how the site they cloned did it?

Hey Makerworld, I know this is a global site, but here is the relevant US law in the copyright act:

17 U.S. Code § 512(c)(3) - Elements of Notification
(3)Elements of notification.—

(A)To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I can only assume that the current policy is an attempt to evade having to take action on copyright complaints, because in court makerworld can always claim “hey, they didn’t provide the required notice under the act, they just used our web form”.

So if you are reporting a model on makerworld for infringing on one of your own creations, don’t just use their freaking form, you won’t get any protection under the law. Follow it up with a letter.

Imagine this in real life:

Hey officer, why did you cuff me, what did I do?
Someone saw you shoplifting that wallet and put it in your pocket.
It’s my wallet. I bought it yesterday. Here, in fact. From that saleslady there.
You are going to jail. That guy, over there Joe, saw you put it in your pocket and it looks just like the wallets they sell here.
Joe? Who is Joe? Is he the manager? He says I stole this wallet? He could just ask his saleslady there who sold it to me yesterday.
No, he’s not the manager, he’s just a concerned citizen.
Did you talk to the manager?
No, why would we need to do that? Joe saw you take it. It looks like the wallets they sell here.
So is the store is pressing charges against me?
Why would they need to ask the store if they are pressing charges? Joe saw you take it.
So basically, anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime, even if they weren’t the victim, and you aren’t even going to verify with the victim first to see if a crime has actually been committed?
Yup. Mind your head.

1 Like
17

thanks for your feedback, especially this observation.
“hat is just basic IP protection policy, it didn’t seem to occur to them that they only should be processing takedown requests from the rights holder, not just any joe schmoe off the internet.”

I mainly created this topic to propose an option on how to improve current process but my hope is almost gone.

Event on the ticket, no answer after 6 days. :frowning:

2 Likes
18

image
image901×488 100 KB

1 Like
19

I was looking for an articulated octopus to print for my little girls and I came across these two models.
What do you think? It seems like a clear copy to me, same geometry with the addition of a small hole (I wouldn’t even call it a remix)

20

Don’t get me started on those octopuses/octopi…

And the worst part is that McGybeer allows remixes, just list it as such and everybody is happy!

1 Like
21

Actually… he’s also breaking the law. He appears to be selling these “remixed” octopi.

If you look in the background you can see the box contains what looks like octopi…

Also:

??

Screenshot 2024-12-03 at 9.32.10 AM
Screenshot 2024-12-03 at 9.32.10 AM908×532 40.1 KB

1 Like