I sometimes don’t understand, firstly most models have a restricted licence on maker world, thigiverse etc, etc. However if an item is a replica of an original item (lets say a cola cola bottle) then the IP and Trademark is owned by the Coca Cola company not the guy who knocked up the replica in fusion. People even put restricted licenses on storage boxes and car ice scrapers, really ? Bottom line is if you don’t hold the original IP and/or trademark, your design is not officially ‘copyrighted’ and you choose to place the STL on sites for the whole world to download the most you can expect is others doing the right thing. Maybe contact Microsoft to see how they perceive your inspired Minecraft model sits with them ? . I would suggest very little (possibly zero) items on the download sites have any legal protection whatsoever.
Copyrights and trademarks are two different things. Copyright protects the expression of an idea in a particular medium but not the idea itself, for example a painting, a book etc. Trademark will protect the logo or the name. The protection is quite different too in terms of recourses and duration. Copyright and trademarks are also territorial with trademarks being much more restrictive than copyrights on account of the Berne Convention. If I create a model with a Coca-cola logo I would own the copyrights to the model but may not have the right to affix the Coca-cola logo on it. The fact I may not have the right to affix the logo does not entail that anyone can copy or reproduce my model as I have the copyrights rights to the model. Also, only Coca-Cola would have the right to demand I cease using the logo. To use an analogy, its not because you did not pay a parking ticket that I can take your car and drive off with it. Hope this helps to clarify.
Ok Darren so you are suggesting people have copyrights to a bottle, or a pen or a feather duster just because they have copied one in cad and put in on thingiverse and no-one else can copy or reproduce it ?. The bottom line is if you don’t have Elon Musks bank account someone selling your model on Etsy can either remove it or if they don’t have any morals there isn’t much you can do about it. That’s why real ideas that are potentially valuable are patented at extortionate cost. If i decide to reproduce a model of a fiesta car that some else has already done one on thingiverse ‘poorly’ and I’ve completed it on CAD from scratch then that’s called competition not copyright, well it is copyright because ford owns the IP.
Copyright, Patent, Industrial designs and trademarks are all separate areas of IP. To complicate matters you can add licenses, whether private or public. The aspect you are raising is if you have a “creation” which is a complex issue. I refer you to my post in Copyright vs remix (sorry dont know how to quote it). FYI you have rights in any model you create subject to other peoples right in their models. Also, your Fiesta analogy is incorrect. The copyright arises from the creation, in this case the poorly create Fiesta model, Ford may have claims to a trademark but again this is debatable as they probably did not include 3d models in their trademark application. Ford has no copyright to the poorly made Fiesta model. The author of the “well made” Fiesta models has the copyrights for that model providing the model is sufficiently distinctive to constitute a separate creation and not an infringement of the first.
I think we can boil it down to the user rather than going overboard here.
Keep in mind there is even companies who patented around 60% of the human genome and they got away with it…
Our problem is that, as a creator, you have very little option and actual support to protect your work on hosting sites.
Create a sofa, washing machine or such and if someone wants to steal the design they have to start from scratch.
Downloading a ready to go 3D model however is quick and easy.
Like it or not but there is neither a dedicated protection available for 3D printing nor a working way to actually enforce the rights we might have.
The thing that sh!ts me is that Bambu could have prevented all this from day one.
Their machines, firmware and studio are heavily restricted and protected, their 3MF files and system not so much.
Especially not in terms of preventing the theft of creations.
It would be no problem to provide a restricted 3MF system, one where the CREATOR or a model can save the 3MF WITH certain restrictions in place.
Like no option for STL export, like having the creators name embedded, like allowing for a simple and quick check of whether or not the uploader IS the creator/owner of the file.
We had no such problems in the early days of 3D printing.
What there was available to host your files had no concept of protection either.
All that changed once people were allowed to make a benefit from 3D models and prints.
Be that some sort of point/reward system or simply status to allow for more visibility on a site.
We will never be able to stop those with criminal intent but I refuse to accept that it is only the creator who has to show responsibility and who has to chase the criminals.
Take hosting sites for other stuff - many DO odder hash checks and such to prevent copycats from making a quick buck.
Hosting sites make a small fortune on the backs of creator, even more so if they allow for paid creations.
Sure, it is great to get some money or your work - but is the percentage the hoster takes off from every sale really not enough to provide proper help and proper protection ???
Your vision of infringement seems to be limited to a direct copy of the stl files. I believe that IP protection should also extend to a reproduction of the features of an existing model. This is how it works in any country that has IP protection. This would also align protection with what is available for other mediums such as books, videos, paintings etc. The issue for someone like MW is that the notion of infringement varies by countries with some not having any. They would have to act as judges which would be a big undertaking. Possibly by extension they could provide for this in the user agreement but again a huge undertaking. Your file protection idea is good but what if I download from some site and repost on MW.
@chiz_m @MalcTheOracle
Thanks for the advice. We will do the following improvements recently:
- Provide English language on MakerWorld China, so that global users may report a model just as what they do on MakerWorld Global
- Allow anonymous report (since Global users may not )
Another feature may take some time.
we are in research of AI tech to detect similar/suspicious pictures, which may help our operator to find more potential stolen designs.
THIS.
Thank you for sharing this mindscape I commiserate with. I feel like someone understands.
ty
We created a copyright claim form for global users, which may be integrated to the “Copyright Claim” button on the model page of MakerWorld China.
For now, you may access it directly to report the model stolen issue before the next MakerWorld update.
What do you consider copyright infringement. A literal copy of the stl files or does it extend beyond that? Thank you
I think this could be getting too caught up in legal arguments. The decision by MW on whether or not to grant a claim and remove a model is administrative, not a legal verdict from a court after a monthslong or yearslong trial. 
Think of it more like an arbitration where MW is the arbitrator, except that after a model has been taken down, one still has a chance to appeal the decision.
In most cases, it is used to report the copying and unauthorized distribution of models. For highly similar models, the platform makes preliminary judgments based on the information provided by the reporter. If the platform decides to take down a model based on its assessment, the uploader of the content can provide creation process materials as a defense.
Please note that MakerWorld is not a judicial institution and does not have the authority to provide legal judgments.
It also refuses to say what the designer complained about and asks you to defend why your A1 mini profile somehow infringed on the designer’s unknown reasons despite only changing the printer type in the profile and all other settings were identical in 500 characters or less.
A hateful system that allows the corruption and weaponisation to go unchecked.
Yes, I’m still angry that as an extremely active community member MW allowed a corrupt designer to block a 5-star rated 4 month old print profile I created because that same designer deleted their print profile before uploading a new one and realised my print profile that was previously only used for the A1 mini prints now was getting all as a 100% 5-star profile looked great against a zero rated brand new one.
You dishonoured yourselves.