Seeking The Community's Wisdom Again: Another "copy" Question

[chiz_m]

I just saw this model:

Minecraft Creeper Kit card- Mini Figure by Typool

…which the creator says that it’s inspired by my design and asked MW about it and was advised that it’s ok. However, I’m not approached by this creator.

Obviously, it’s inspired by my model below:

Minecraft-inspire Creeper Mini Figure Kit/Keychain by chiz_m

I’d like to get the community’s opinion if my thinking is correct or flawed.

While I can accept that the creator made his model from scratch, my problem is aside from the design being slightly different, he copied my concept of a creeper kit card having the same look and presumably about the same size. He even copied my design language, e.g., where the parts are split, how the body connects to the head, even the shape of the sprue connectors!

I licensed it as CC-BY-NC-ND and up to this day, I have not provided anybody commercial license in spite of a lot of people has approached me to seek for commercial license. My primary reason is that the IP owners, at the moment, allows sharing fan-made creations but forbid selling.

Another reason why I feel this creator’s model should not be allowed coz I feel once he gets away with “created from scratch” excuse, he can copy all my designs from scratch and start selling it claiming that the idea and creation is his.

And this is why I have an issue with this. I’m afraid that once he starts selling or provide commercial license, then it might get the IP lawyers’ attention that someone started selling and they might trace it to me even though I’m not the one who is selling it. For this reason, I regularly check Etsy, eBay and other online markets and report anyone I find selling my designs.

Hence, before I contact the creator, I’d like to get everyone’s advice if it’s reasonable for me to act.

[3dEd]

I think the issue is copyright law. It is that one can’t licence something to others if they don’t own or control the copyright. That is, the copyrightable part, the Minecraft Creeper, is owned by Minecraft or whoever owns Minecraft and not any fan-art creator.

[chiz_m]

As I mentioned in my first post, I’m aware of what is being allowed or not by the IP owners themselves:

I do not provide commercial license because I know I don’t own the copyright and I’m not allowed to sell but encouraged to share based on the IP owner’s usage guidelines.

The advice I’m seeking is the validation on whether the other design is “inspired” or blatantly copied from my design the way it was executed, i.e., techniques used in connecting the parts to the sprue, decision on how to connect the individual parts, where they were split, etc. I mean, he could do another creeper kit card but he could have made it split differently or assembled differently and I won’t have a problem with that. This what I’m trying to highlight.

[MalcTheOracle]

It is clear the Minecraft people have provided generous terms for the community to provide their own fan art and that your model is covered 7 def that.

So, we can ignore any concerns over your initial rights to produce this.

I hate the “inspired by” reasoning when essentially nothing changes.

More over, I have never seen a Minecraft kit card that you didn’t produce, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but, when I think Minecraft I don’t think kit card unless I consider your creation.

I consider Minecraft in a kit card yours. MakerWorld also appears to believe such as at least four of your Minecraft kit cards are featured staff picks.

This doesn’t mean you own the concept, others could do it, but, there are other ways to do it that are not so similar in form and function as to be considered distinct.

Thus the question becomes; if we assume you have the right are any resulting copies essentially the same or distinctly different.

Where we fall on that scale indicates if the designer of the other model is taking liberties.

I am deeply concerned by the similarities and the admitted “inspiration”.

I could be inspired and create my own take, knowing how you did it, I would avoid that to make it my own. I do not believe merging two of your parts into one single one with an angle is sufficiently different to warrant the belief I “made it my own”.

I can create a model from scratch without ever seeing the original and still end up with something similar to someone else’s (I have done this).

However, stating the inspiration and ending up 1 degree of separation is far too close for my liking.

I would raise it with MW.

• You do not own the original copyright, but, their terms permit your use
• You were first out of the gate and made this kit card Minecraft thing a specialty
• MW has rewarded and recognised your efforts multiple times for your work
• The usurper admitted they saw your work and used it as the basis for their own
• The result is a near identical version
• I struggle to believe they provided their completed model to MW along with yours and said “do you accept these are different?” I imagine it was a conversation based on the principle of the idea of using one model for inspiration, a hypothetical scenario.

[krellboy]

I think yours fall under this one instead.

I don’t think any of Malc’s reasons are valid, but I definitely think you should try anyway. Makerworld plays by makeworld rules, it’s worth a shot!

@MalcTheOracle

I would raise it with MW. …

[MalcTheOracle]

@krellboy

I don’t think any of Malc’s reasons are valid,

Which ones are factually wrong?

[krellboy]

They are all factually correct. I just don’t think those are valid criteria to be using. I also think it is their site and they can establish their own criteria to achieve their own objectives. In this case one of those objectives might be to not piss off chiz_m.

[chiz_m]

Thanks Malc for once again providing logic and rationale. I just wanted to know if people also see the same thing I’m seeing and that my judgement is not clouded just because I’m the one that’s being affected.

@MalcTheOracle

I consider Minecraft in a kit card yours. MakerWorld also appears to believe such as at least four of your Minecraft kit cards are featured staff picks.

This doesn’t mean you own the concept, others could do it, but, there are other ways to do it that are not so similar in form and function as to be considered distinct.

Thank you. I agree that kit cards are not a new idea, neither are minecraft in kit cards form, and that makes my own kit cards also not an original idea. Thank you for my designs making that impression for you.

@MalcTheOracle

I can create a model from scratch without ever seeing the original and still end up with something similar to someone else’s (I have done this).

100%. But if one admits that it was inspired then that is different from the circumstance you described. And this is exactly where I’m coming from.

[MalcTheOracle]

@chiz_m

But if one admits that it was inspired then that is different from the circumstance you described. And this is exactly where I’m coming from.

As am I.

@MalcTheOracle

I am deeply concerned by the similarities and the admitted “inspiration”.

@MalcTheOracle

However, stating the inspiration and ending up 1 degree of separation is far too close for my liking.

[chiz_m]

@krellboy

I think yours fall under this one instead.

No question there. Just want to point out though that the section you quoted is the introduction for the various forms of minecraft creations and how the IP owners feel about it and discuss down the line what they allow or not.

The section I quoted about handcrafted creations follows after that Commercial Use section.

[krellboy]

I think you have a good chance of winning.

[MalcTheOracle]

@krellboy

I also think it is their site and they can establish their own criteria to achieve their own objectives

I didn’t say otherwise, nor was the OP asking anyone to do that.

Thoughts were requested, I provided mine, some formed as I wrote. All (as you noted) factually correct).

I ended my suggestion as you also noted.

@MalcTheOracle

I would raise it with MW.

@krellboy

In this case one of those objectives might be to not piss off chiz_m.

They may do this, while I believe @chiz_m has earned that distinction, I couldn’t say which way they will go.

I was one of the top 100 designers of last year, I was also one of the top 1% of earners last year, that doesn’t mean they side with me, it turns out, my decision not side with my views whichever side they fall has often annoyed MW/BL and caused me issues.

I am not a shill or mouth piece for them, I praise when due and scold when needed.

They have been generous in the past, recently in spite of my public views (which didn’t change afterwards).

I believe flipping a coin is as much of an indicator of how they will land on any decision.

[chiz_m]

@krellboy

In this case one of those objectives might be to not piss off chiz_m.

In as much as I would like to think of it that way, it’s not true. I don’t consider myself as special or someone important to MW. My gift card redemption requests are also subjected to reviews like anyone else.

If I do feel that way, I could have went straight complaining to MW and not consult anyone.

[chiz_m]

@MalcTheOracle

I am not a shill or mouth piece for them, I praise when due and scold when needed.

Your honesty is what I appreciate from you the most.

[BambuBanker]

He designed the model from scratch, you have no ownership over the idea or the IP so I don’t really think there’s anything you can do, his model is just as legitimate as yours.

[chiz_m]

Interesting take but let’s go with it for a bit…

So, having the same size of the head, is not accidental when it’s designed from scratch?

Also, having the same peg and hole structure as well as the hollow areas around it, can be passed as designed from scratch?

(I specifically made the head hollow so that it will not be top heavy. Anyone else can just have the head solid.)

How about where the feet starts and how it connects to the body? Was just a coincidence even though it was designed from scratch?

(I could have cut the body horizontally and could have added a peg to connect them but during designing, I decided is below the body where I would split it.)

How about the characteristics of the sprue attachments having a rectangular branch with a tapered end?

(I did a lot of trial and error to find the best shape to make the sprue branches strong enough to retain the parts while easy enough to just twist the part out of the sprue.)

I can go on and on… Besides, he admitted his design was “inspired” by my design. Can he start copying all my other designs and claim that he modeled it from scratch even though a lot of the same elements and techniques were copied and he can get a free pass?

Heck, there are a thousand different ways to cut the model for assembly and yet he went with the same cut areas (with the exception that he made the body whole instead of split in half).

I’m not arguing that I own the IP and that nobody else can make the same kit card out of the same character. I’m arguing that this other person could have made a totally different version by using different techniques and ways and manner at which the model is split to make it uniquely his own.

[ToRA]

I think it is pretty clear that they made the whole thing from scratch, as in they did not use any of the meshes from your model. I see quite a lot of differences, but there are definitely core aspects that are similar. To me, it seems like they liked your style and wanted to take a stab at imitating it but imparting their own flair to it. Like with the more rounded edges.

Perhaps think of it like someone hearing another artists song they really like and then they decide they want to try their own take on it, sort of like a song cover.

Maybe they liked the overall idea but didn’t like certain aspects and wanted to change those and allow others to choose their model over yours based on the actual differences. For example, it could be argued that the face looks closer to the look of a creeper, added more detail to the feet, and made the body taper upwards. Though, the body tapering definitely departs from the accuracy to the creeper. This could be a sign of just wanting it done differently.

I believe that the core to the question is their intention behind this. Did they just want it done differently? Was it something like a practice for learning and they wanted to share it after they finished? Are they trying to piggyback on your work for profit? They provided some amount of attribution, but they could have added a link. They also state “(talked with mw support and its ok)”, but it would have been better to reach out to you directly. However, was not adding a link or reaching out to you done out of ignorance, or malice?

Similarly, you might try reaching out to them yourself. You could let them know how you would have preferred it to be handled, and also suggest in the future to reach out to the original creator of their inspiration directly instead of relying on MW alone.

[chiz_m]

@ToRA

I believe that the core to the question is their intention behind this. Did they just want it done differently? Was it something like a practice for learning and they wanted to share it after they finished? Are they trying to piggyback on your work for profit? They provided some amount of attribution, but they could have added a link. They also state “(talked with mw support and its ok)”, but it would have been better to reach out to you directly. However, was not adding a link or reaching out to you done out of ignorance, or malice?

Ok. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for a bit for trying to do it differently. Do you consider slightly tweaking the design, i.e., making some areas thicker or thinner but keeping the mechanism and overall characteristics the same can be considered trying to do something differently?

This person has been habitually copying popular models, tweaks them a bit and asks MW if he can upload and uses that as justification for him to post. See examples below.

I think that that is his way of working around the license if it does not allow remixing or derivatives. Did he tell MW that the license of the model he’s taking inspiration from is Standard Digital License or license that doesn’t allow derivative? And thinking he gets away with it so he continues to “improve” other designs without regard of the original model’s license.

So I reached out and politely asked that he takes down his model. I’ll give him credit for responding back and being honest.

However, just as I predicted. If I let this person get away with my creeper kit card design, he plans to release more designs inspired by mine!

Funny he says his design is already different from mine by a lot. lol Notice the square, solid peg connector on the head of the model? Why was it not hollowed out like the creeper? Notice how the rib cage cage look like? Does making the edges of the ribs rounded make it original?

My design:

You be the judge.

After looking deeper into his work, I’m convinced that this person’s MO is scour for the popular models, tweak it and upload without regard of the original model’s license. I’m afraid that if he is not reported, he feels he can get away with it and will continue to rip off other designers.

[chiz_m]

Copied Design

A copied design directly replicates an existing 3D-printed fidget model with little to no changes.

Example of a Copied Design: Suppose there’s a popular 3D-printed fidget cube with unique rotating gears and a sleek design. Even if the final print is branded differently or comes in a different color, the core design remains unchanged and directly mirrors the original.

Inspired Design

An inspired design draws from the concepts or features of the original fidget model but reimagines or reworks them to create something new.

Example of an Inspired Design: Let’s say the designer admires the rotating gears of the original fidget cube. Instead of directly replicating the cube, they design a new model with a spherical shape and embed rotating discs instead of gears. They might add additional interactive elements, like sliders or clickers, and use a different aesthetic, such as a bio-organic texture or a modular structure. The result has a fresh look and new functionality, while still showing inspiration from the concept of the original fidget cube.

Summary:

• Copied Design: Exact reproduction with minimal or no modification.
• Inspired Design: Original reinterpretation that transforms features into something distinct.

[ToRA]

I wonder if they simply do not understand that they are so close to a direct copy that it’s hard to consider it an inspired design than just a replication. I can see how a person could think that it’s okay as long as they don’t use any of the original models, making them “from scratch”, and that there is some differences that qualifies it as inspiration.

Coming up with new ideas is hard, so if a person wants to try to make a name for themselves and finds it too difficult to come up with their own ideas then the low-hanging fruit would be to copy another’s design and make some changes to it. If you don’t put much thought on the ethics, then there’s no reason to think that what you’re doing is wrong. After all, you’re making the model yourself from scratch, so legally you’re safe. If it’s legal, then it should also be ethical, right?

At least, that’s my guess to their possible thinking. I believe that’s the most generous possibility.