When I found the original model, I really liked it. I even boosted it. But it was too small. According to the creator’s Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license, I wasn’t allowed to modify their file, and I respected that license. Instead of making direct changes, I went into CAD and designed my own version from scratch—exactly the right way to do it.
It started with a number of people coming onto my YouTube channel and accusing me of modifying the original design and calling it my own , despite the fact that I show, on video, that I created an independent version in CAD . In the spirit of education, I tried to explain the difference between a derivative work and an original creation . Unfortunately, some people refused to accept the truth—that an independently created model, built from the ground up in CAD, is not a violation of Creative Commons, no matter how similar it may look . Ultimately, I had to mute those individuals because they were unwilling to engage in a discussion based on facts.
I wouldn’t normally spend time disputing something like this—but false assumptions, when repeated enough, create a false consensus. Just because a group of people believes something is true doesn’t make it factual. Sometimes, it takes someone like me to prove, beyond a doubt, what’s real and what isn’t.
What Creative Commons Actually Protects
Creative Commons is a great system—it ensures that your model can’t be taken, modified, or used beyond the limitations you set . But what it doesn’t do is prevent someone from creating an original design inspired by another idea .
When I designed the Bigger Better Scoop , I never used the original file, never took measurements, and didn’t copy its geometry . The final product resembles the original—just like any chair will resemble another chair —but Creative Commons protects the original file, not the idea of the file . Resemblance alone is not a Creative Commons violation.
If Creative Commons protected ideas, then no one could ever design another chair, another screwdriver, or another coffee mug—because the basic concept of those things already exists. But that’s not how it works. Creative Commons only applies to the specific execution of a design—the original digital file and direct modifications of that file—not to new designs that were independently created.
What Happened on MakerWorld
When I uploaded my model, some people who don’t understand how Creative Commons works reported it. MakerWorld’s automated system flagged it for removal. I have since filed an appeal, providing CAD screenshots as proof that my model was created independently.
Now, I’m waiting for MakerWorld to do the right thing and restore my model . If they properly review the evidence , it should be clear that no violation occurred—because none ever had .
A Lesson for the Community
Just because you believe something violates Creative Commons doesn’t mean it does. No amount of outrage or noise online changes the fact that creators have the right to create. We’re allowed to be inspired by others—just as I hope people take inspiration from my work to build something new.
That’s the spirit of an open-source creative community—innovation, not restriction. Unfortunately, a small group of people seem more interested in stifling creativity than fostering it. But I’m not the type to let misinformation go unchallenged, so I took the time to prove the truth.
I hope this serves as a valuable lesson : Taking inspiration from an idea and creating something unique of your own is not a violation of Creative Commons—it’s how progress is made.
