RANT: Designer gamed to the system to pull down one of my profiles

[MalcTheOracle]

This is a RANT, if this triggers you, do not engage. Impolite or abusive comments will be treated accordingly.

I have included several screenshots, which made it harder to read, I have hidden some behind reveals so it doesn’t get confusing.

This is not about points as we are talking about just 27 points.

This is about the weaponisation of the reporting system. A system that I have used to report actual offenders that break actual rules where I provide supporting evidence for every incidence.

Scenario

I woke to receive this message from MW.

I’m confused, what could I have possibly done that would result in such action being taken? I select “View Details”.

Show Screenshot

Well, now I am even more confused.

• What “original author’s requirements”?
• The author never reached out to me.
• Seek permission from the original author, erm what!
• Adding print profiles for printers not currently supported is actively encouraged by BL and incentivised
• My profile matched the original profile except for supporting the missing printer
• I have clearly not breached any community guidelines

I have not yet appealed the ruling, I will do as lies should not win. Remember, I ONLY have the information provided by MW who said it was the designer who initiated this action.

What happened before today?

1. On the 26th of September 2023 @3DomSculpts uploaded a Deadpool coaster to MW.
2. On the 27th of December 2023, having downloaded the model, and created an A1 mini profile (as one did not exist), I printed the coaster.
3. On the same day, I reviewed the coaster as I liked it.
4. I was irritated that my new A1 mini couldn’t print most models as there were very few profiles for the A1 mini after its launch, so I decided I could be part of the solution.
5. I took many of the profiles I had created for my benefit and matched them with photos of the models.
6. I began uploading the print profiles for models that lacked support for the A1 mini printer.
7. On the 6th of February 2024, I uploaded a print profile for the Deadpool coaster.

What appears to have happened yesterday?

8. The designer removed their profile which lacked support for the A1 mini.
9. They uploaded a new profile finally including support for the A1 mini.
10. They reported my profile, for reasons not given to me as shown in the above images.

26-09-2023 - Designer's original model first uploaded

27-12-2023 - My review

06-02-2024 - My print profile adding A1 mini support

22-06-2024 - Designer's brand new profile

23-06-2024 - MW penalising me for the designer weaponising - reports

In summary

It appears the original designer has weaponised the reporting system and fabricated a reason why my profile must be removed.

As no reason was provided, I am left to guess what justification the designer gave to warrant such action.

I imagine the designer said something like, “My profile already has support for all the printers, this third-party profile is unnecessary.”

This would be despite the designer not providing that support until four and a half months after I did.

Things you probably spotted

• The model has 283 downloads and 193 prints, yet their profile released yesterday shows only 1 download and 1 print.
• My profile had 16 downloads and 12 prints.
• My profile has 5 stars.
• None of the ratings now have an associated profile as the designer removed theirs and falsely killed mine
• My profile was the same as the designer’s except for the target printer, if there was a problem with my profile, there was a problem with their profile
• I didn’t upload the original model, if it was an IP issue, the model would have been removed, not solely my profile.

Things you may not know

I did some research and @3DomSculpts has been trying to remove the ability of other users to add profiles to models. The reasons stated tend to be “lower quality”, well, this is one is identical.

Feature Request - Third Party Profile Options

It appears that the designer may have leveraged their friends within BL to have my profile removed - suspicious?

Downloads from non-registered users are not counted for

I’m verified, have direct lines of comms with BL, have had models featured on MW and in their promotional ads on social media, yet feel massively let down by such a ridiculous decision. I would hope that they might reconsider, but if they don’t, i’ll continue to push my work out and grow on the other platforms.

According to this entry, they had “left the building”.

Downloads from non-registered users are not counted for

I recently made my small selection of 140 models private on MW on this basis. I don’t care about anonymous downloads not counting, but that they are allowing anonymous downloads at all, giving the reasoning as “security”. Who or what is being secured exactly? If the point distribution system needed to be revised again, state that, but don’t mock us by claiming its a security issue.

What do you think?

a. Do you think this weaponisation is fair?
b. Do you think there’s a different reason?

[MalcTheOracle]

I agree with everything you said. No offence was taken by me.

[MalcTheOracle]

@RetroSharky

We can now be assuming that this is “fan art” and therefore permitted

Did you miss this? They are saying the same as you.

The rest was discussing the wider question of IP.

You are talking about your original work as a transformative art, this is something I agree with.

I believe (I am willing to be correct by them) that @RetroSharky was talking about non-transformative art. Essentially, nothing changes from the source, it isn’t new work now and there is nothing to attach a licence to.

Of course…

It would be nice to see some responses directly related to my rant.

[3DomSculpts]

I wasn’t going to bother responding to this, as obviously unlike some people, I don’t have the time to spend on nonsense.

But the fact that you weighed in on the IP side of things, is absolutely laughable. Do you have permission to use the Apple logo and attach an SDL to it? How about the Amazon logo? How about the Harry Potter logo and Harry Potter branding across a bunch of your models? Maybe the Fallout branding? Surely you must have permission from Mcdonald’s to attach their logo to your listing? Your entire “model catalogue” is littered with the IP of others, with SDLs attached.

So next time, before you spend an hour typing up a nonsense thread, check your own behaviour.

The reasonings for requesting the profile removal are my own, and were accepted by the Makerworld team. That should be where your concern ended.

[KanneKaffe]

Yes, it seems to be very popular to use other companies’ brands in your own products in order to capitalise on them. Most companies will have no problem with this, as long as it serves to spread and publicise the brand. E.g. Bambulab also tacitly authorises the use of its brand silently. And although it was pointed out more than once, there is no exclusion in the Makerworld user guidelines. Only the Makerworld logo was excluded.

[SimEyeSee]

@3DomSculpts

The reasonings for requesting the profile removal are my own, and were accepted by the Makerworld team. That should be where your concern ended.

@3DomSculpts, I think it would be useful to know the reason why @MakerWorld granted the removal, to understand the rules regarding making profiles for other people’s models. I thought that if you didn’t actually change the model thereby making it a remix, that profiles are ok to make. And when I tried to look into it, I couldn’t find any reason that made sense in this situation.

Also, I would like to know if @MakerWorld gave @MalcTheOracle any negative flags on his account in addition to removing the profile. I can’t logically think of anything @MalcTheOracle did wrong to justify getting his profile removed, so it would be nice to know the logic behind the removal.

[3DomSculpts]

Again, the reasons are my own. Go ask Makerworld, and i’m sure if they wish to disclose or clarify things, they will. I have already flagged this thread itself, as it is targeted and to me, a little obsessive.

[SimEyeSee]

That is why I included @MakerWorld in my reply. I am hoping that they clarify the rules regarding profiles. I am pretty confident I know your reason for wanting the profile removed, I would like to know why @MakerWorld granted the removal.

[MalcTheOracle]

I’ve worked out why @3DomSculpts reported my print profile.

At first, I believed it was because he failed to include support for the A1 mini when the model was uploaded and only corrected this a couple of days ago.

I added my print profile back in early February, it was the very same one I used to print the coaster on my A1 mini (back in December), I left a review of “Perfect” with 5 stars.

I suspected he didn’t want identical profiles available, each supporting the same full range of printers. Mine is months old, and his profile is brand new.

It was close, but, I now believe it was slightly more sinister.

He didn’t want his brand new profile competing against my 4-and-a-half-month-old 5-star rated profile with excellent written reviews competing against his new profile without a rating or reviews.

He may have deleted the original profile without considering the ramifications and regretted it. It could be that he reported my profile as a knee-jerk reaction without any thought of those ramifications either.

---

The irony is, had he reached out and explained, I would have removed the profile. I plugged the lack of support for the A1 mini printer, I had printed and liked the model, so why shouldn’t other A1 mini users? It never was for points.

---

Now it is about how the system was gained for malicious intent and why MW allowed such a thing to occur.

Especially as MW actively encourage and reward people for doing exactly what I did. We deserve to know how this was allowed and ensure it can’t happen again.

[3DomSculpts]

Sure, great detective work.
I would have left my profile up with 100s of downloads if that were the case, but you think what you want, I don’t care, and won’t waste another second of my time on it (or you)

[MalcTheOracle]

@3DomSculpts

But the fact that you weighed in on the IP side of things

I didn’t weigh in as you put it, I responded to two people discussing it.

@3DomSculpts

Do you have permission to use the Apple logo and attach an SDL to it? How about the Amazon logo? How about the Harry Potter logo and Harry Potter branding across a bunch of your models? Maybe the Fallout branding? Surely you must have permission from Mcdonald’s to attach their logo to your listing? Your entire “model catalogue” is littered with the IP of others, with SDLs attached.

I laughed so hard when I read this bit.

You reported me for a DEADPOOL coaster. You realise you do not own the copyright or IP for that, right?

You also do not own the copyright or IP for any of these, yet, you have provided them to the public.

• Harry Potter
• Mickey Mouse
• Wolverine
• Baby Yoday
• Ahsoka
• Star Wars (various)
• Fallout
• Stingray
• Hello Kitty
• Willy Wonka
• Palworld
• Minecraft
• Kawaii Kat
• Yoda
• Stranger Things
• Darth Vader
• Punisher
• Gameboy
• Tiny Diny

@3DomSculpts

So next time, before you spend an hour typing up a nonsense thread, check your own behaviour.

It took less than 20 minutes.

@3DomSculpts

The reasonings for requesting the profile removal are my own, and were accepted by the Makerworld team. That should be where your concern ended.

I’ve worked it out and the fact MW allowed it (pending) doesn’t mean you were correct, it means they haven’t realised your motives yet.

@3DomSculpts

I have already flagged this thread itself, as it is targeted and to me, a little obsessive.

It isn’t targeted at you, it is about YOU, you are the one gaming the system.

It is one post, which lays out the facts, something you do not like.

[3DomSculpts]

You chimed in on the IP comment, I pointed out your absolute hypocrisy.
I have never had an issue with people infringing on the IP of corporations.

I’m also sure it was also entirely coincidental that you released your poxy Harry Potter Tie Keychains the day after I released my articulated ones as well, right?

You seem concerningly obsessed. I suggest you concern yourself with your own conduct.

[JonRaymond]

This thread isn’t going anywhere productive and will be closed if it degrades any further. I’ve only left it open in the off chance that @MakerWorld feels the need to comment on it.

[Nora]

It appears the original designer has weaponised the reporting system and fabricated a reason why my profile must be removed.So I’ve completed designing another board game and don’t get me wrong, it’s fun. The group likes it. Blind playtesters like it. Game Rant speaks with Heart Machine devs about making Hyper Light Breaker, a game with an inherently contradictory design philosophy.

[user_3026326371]

Here is my five cents worth - based on several years of activity in maker forums >

There is always people I call ‘freebie hunters’ - those constantly taking the work of other people to get a benefit from their work.
In this case here print profiles are used - only because those providing them can get incentives otherwise no one would bother THIS much…
Should there be some easy click option to add a missing profile to the ORIGINAL model?
Maybe, but then again it is way too easy to download a model and to set what’s needed for a different printer.
No different to downloading just the STL files from somewhere to get them print ready.
Ready to print is just a convenience and just because there is a 3MF file for your printer available won’t always mean that the provided setting are the best possible.

Presenting this ‘hard’ work basically as your creativity as from what I could see without and credit for the original creator or a link to the original…
I would feel offended as well - not by the action as such but by the likely outcome.
Such stolen work takes away download, likes and more from the original and through gives credit to someone who did not do any creative work at all.
And if the license then states using a model in such ways is not permitted …

This total lack of oversight, reporting bot systems and most of all those incentives are what ruin an otherwise good place for creators.
When I started sharing my creation almost 3 decades ago I was about as dumb as most are today when start sharing their models.
For some weird reason I actually thought is this great website makes me select a licence model for my work that this would be honoured somehow…
I found my circuits published in electronics magazines without any credits or such, found my HV plans on more websites than I could counts as always under a different name with the author claiming to have been behind all of it.
Some of my circuits even made onto Ebay and AliExpress - copied by Chinaman and sold by the thousands - I guess it is it some sort of honour to have this happen but sadly did not get me any of their profits.
So when I pulled the plug I also stopped sharing my 3D models, well most of them anyway.
I have no need track how popular my model might be, how many downloads it got or who might have have modified for other uses.
But it really p!$$es me off when I see people claiming MY work is their creation…

So who do we blame here ??
The original author who probaly checked the profile of the offender and after finding it was not a coincidence but habit to not message the offender ?
Was it the creative profile creator who failed to ask for permission to upload the model with just another print profile added?
Or isn’t it more like Bambu created a system prone to abuse while lacking the man power on the backend to keep the place in good order ?
As long as people can make money the easy way and hosters promote this nothing much will ever change…
Just saying…