Reducing attractivity of copyright infringement

MakerWorld
1

Hello,

after discovering a few ripped models on Makerworld, I was thinking if the problem could be improved.
The models in this case were both added from Cult3D, where it was published with " CULTS PU "-License.

TLDR: Use, don’t share, don’t redistribute, share pictures of print.

Also on Creality DB with Standard License

3D Model files sold on Creality Cloud are available under a standard license, which has certain restrictions. In particular, these files cannot be used for any commercial use; it’s for personal use only. 3D model or any portion of the model in a digital or physical format may not be shared, transmitted, redistributed, remixed, duplicated, or sold.

In this case, two models uploaded by the same user, ripped from the same creator.
No printing profile included, same description (ask for different size, etc.).
I think they only were uploaded to generate points.

My idea how possibly to approach this:

  • Allow linking of third party DBs
  • Detect license of supported DBs automatically
  • Enable creating printing profiles if third party License allows it
  • If allowed, make it possible to upload STL + 3MF …
  • Still show the link, if provided

I think it would benefit Makerworld to have these kinds of models in the DB, even if not hosted directly. Especially for the user, who can still search here and maybe don’t even need another account/leave website.

To make this work, it would need also adjustment in point generation (I am no expert here):

  • Reduce/Remove points for STL upload
  • Add small amount of points for linking models
  • Make it worthy, adding a print profile to this linked model

In this case the ripper has less/no temptation to rip the model, instead he gains some points for linking.
Instead, if the “linker” has a printer, he can upload a printing profile. This benefits the BambuLab Handy users too.
Trying to reduce spam: Only proper additions will be rewarded. No copy pasta.
More like:
Original Creator, Date of original Upload, License, Pictures, …

I think this could reduce the copyright infringements, as the ripper is not rewarded directly for uploading assets of other creators. They need at least a printer to create a print profile.
Instead, they are rewarded for linking the models.

Now, I don’t know about the regulations between DBs and how pictures can be used on Makerworld. But Thangs and Yeggi are doing this too.

Br
Stimmenhotel

1 Like
2

No. A print profile contains a copy of the original object, which constitutes copyright infringement for the original designs mentioned.

1 Like
3

If you are referring to crawling third party databases to generate a record of model licenses for policing here, the issue with that is blocking if the activity is discovered and there isn’t some kind of agreement in place.

Such mutual policing agreements could be a good thing though, but there could be problems with companies not wanting to share access to databases with other companies. But maybe they would go for it. It protects users and users’ IP.

4
  • Reduce/Remove points for STL upload
  • Make it worthy, adding a print profile to this linked model

→ Original gets linked. If allowed, Print Profile can be created.
=> Bigger reward for more work (Print Profile)

  • Allow linking of third party DBs
  • Add small amount of points for linking models

→ If not allowed, no model is on Makerworld, but instead linked.
=> Small Reward for small work. Reduces ripped content.

5

Not necessarily crawling. More like https://alternativeto.net/ is doing it: Crowdsourcing
The users, if they find something interesting, which can not be added directly to Makerworld, still can link it.
If remixes are allowed, if redistributing, etc. is allowed, nothing changes. It is only more profitable to create the print profile instead of just uploading the STL.

Crawling, if I am not mistaken, is illegal on parts of the world anyway. (even if it can’t be avoided completely)

Edit: Also, I don’t want to try to give a solution. I just want to add something to think about. The last makerworld update seemed to target a similar approach by making pictures of printed models mandatory.

6

Originally there were a third type of model uploads on MakerWorld called share.

I think it was a good solution to this problem but they removed it. Probably because it was abused or misused in some way, idk

I think it’s a bad idea. People will just mass upload linked models from other platforms. Reducing the overall quality of MW IMHO

2 Likes
7

I think so too …
Still, it can be reduced similar to how it is done now:

Limiting the amount of points that can be farmed this way per month.
Or even make it with no reward at all, only if a proper Print Profile is added, with proper pictures.

I think much is about crowdsourcing. Butr as long as it is not “harmful” to the ripper crediting the original creator, it may help.

I haven’t seen the Share option, so I can’t compare it.

8

Good idea

Here is an example of a shared model on MW:

9

I just checked the guidelines again.
Is uploading a not modified model from another site even allowed?
The linked Bust is at least modified and scaled, so it could now be a remix.
While adding a model, which is C0-Licenced, without any modifications, can’t be a remix nor an original.
Here a share option would be needed again.

Or do I miss something?

@JonRaymond The word you corrected should be: attractiveness
Activity fits okay too, but the whole thinking was about how to reduce the reward for uploading rips.

10

?

11

According to my notifications and the changelog of the main post, you have edited the title of the topic.
But instead of activity, it should be attractivity. At least this is what I wanted to say with it.
Reducing the ripping by making it less rewarding and attractive.
Maybe it is also a bad translation by myself, tbh.
“Taking the stimulus away” in German “Den Reiz nehmen”.

1143×179 12.5 KB

12

Fixed

13

No, you’re right, it’s not. And it’s not limited to CC0 models.

This changes are too small, it would not even consider as a remix by MW guidelines

:100:

14

I wonder quite a bit of these profiles, models and licenses…
Back in the day we shared just the 3D model and sometimes added a few pics of the creation.
There was no gain, no benefits, no points…

Today, especially with our printers it would make sense to have model, print settings and filament settings separated.
Why ?

The 3MF format does not allow for any proper STL export, the exported files are usually a mess.
This makes it rather hard to make changes or modifications to a model where such things are allowed.
And licenses could be applied and limited to the actual model - leaving more than enough wiggle room for custom print settings or filaments tunings.
Having the print setting separated allows a downloading user to stick with their own defaults and to compare settings.
Right now whenever I download a 3MF it either makes a mess or I have to change the settings to what works with my high flow hotend.
Well, separate filament profiles and settings just make sense already when it comes to their calibration.

Problem with licenses is that they can’t be properly enforced, there is always someone intentionally ignoring them or stealing models just because they can.
Like it or not but it is like in politics: Too little way too late.
We basically only have two options left if we wanted to make a difference:

  1. All hosters start to work together properly to deal with copy cats, thieves and other undesirables out there.
    While this already started with some it is too late because we already have plenty of sites exclusively offering the stolen work of creators.
  2. Switch to DRM protected files.
    Any DRM protection can be hacked but even a most basic one would make it very hard for the majority of those people to extract STL files or post 3MF and such in their name.
    A creator could just define the licence and export options in Studio and the resulting 3MF file would no longer be usable for thieves.
    Even the ID or name of the creator can be embedded in the file to show in the title and more places - making it very easy for everyone to see whether it is a genuine file of not.

DRM options for other digital files are so common now that it can only be a matter of time until a hoster or print software provider jumps onto it.
While I hate the general idea of DRM in general as it is mostly used to make money I do see the benefits.
Take all those creators out there that try to make a living by selling their models and related files.
A properly implemented public/private key system would offer a level of control they require.
User just wants to print it once as a gift or such? The public key supplied with the file will allow just that.
Once the printer confirms the print is completed and the users is happy the file won’t let you print again.
You want to allow some models of a big creation to be customisable but other models of it protected?
No problem either, just select the DRM features similar to the print settings in the object tab…
You can even make it online/server based…
As in limiting the 3MF to only work with Studio and supported printers while in order to print the model the user would have to request an “unlock”.
This would help all those creators already gone the Patreon way or using other membership based systems to bind their customers and provide originals at a fair price.
Don’t worry about how often someone prints your model or ignores the selling limitations for printed models…
The basic download either only works for a few days or for a few prints until it refuses to budge.
Download and pay again if you want more prints or pay for download with more allocated prints/unlimited prints…
The possible options are about as limitless as the possible hassles coming with DRM implementations.
But what else is there except for creators teaming up and running their own hosting sites where they set all rules, have all control and are able to demand a complete and verifiable user registration so violators can be dealt with through the law and directly.

15

Going by other types of digital IP (music, shows, movies etc), only a walled garden marketplace, plus end-to-end content+platform+hardware integration will ensure copyright protection.

But I suspect this will be hard for many users to accept; perhaps many view 3D printing as a hobby.

So we’re in a situation where we try to have a ‘sharing’ community, yet hope that everyone will play by the licensing and copyright rules, and expect the platform to be judge and enforcer. A dynamic and unstable set up to say the least! :sweat_smile:

16

Hey, I am a hobbyist 3d printer :smiley:

The whole DRM is a way nobody likes. Good chance to create a monopoly like … Spotify. The whole DRM story has an ongoing war at music and movies, big players, a lot of money is burned there. I don’t think DRM will succeed.

Anyway. I am not against sharing and also being able to sell models.
It is just what I see at Makerworld since I registered: Models ripped from other sources.
At one of these rips even was mentioned why: “Please DL my upload so I can purchase a BambuLab printer” (Written from memory).

And this is what I try to battle with this discussion. People uploading things they found to gain coins. Not even having a printer, limited to uploading models.
Sure, I hope they can some time afford a printer … But by stealing? No!
For this, there either needs to be an option to share finds from other sites and including a printing profile for having it “BambuLab” compatible, without creating a remix. (Why changing something great, just to upload it here?)
That is what I meant with “attractiveness” of ripping. It should be more like: Hey, I have found something over here. And since the license allows it, here is a printing profile for the BambuLab printer.

Effect should be, the main uploading is not the way people gain coins.
But instead integrating these models, hosted at MW or not, should be the way.
For the most models, a printing profile using the default settings could be enough, could even be done by people saving for a printer.