Its giving me ChatGPT vibes - it tends to unnecessarily highlight words if you haven’t trained it correctly.
I drew a circle once and the internet accused me of claiming to have reinvented the wheel.
All jokes aside, I wonder how many people (like myself) aren’t even bothering with putting designs online only because they don’t want to deal with the drama.
1 Like
Well-written, thorough, fact-based, reasonable and logical reply…
Thanks. It was a pleasure to read.
I wholeheartedly agree on all points.
If the “original” scoop had been a chair, It would hardly have been a chippendale 
It’s like trying to own the concept of a spoon, just because you made an extra pretty one.
1 Like
This is something that I have faced too when making models. Sadly, the only way at the moment to prove that you made the model wholly without derivatives is to send a video of redesigning it from scratch. This way maker world will know if you did not just import sections of the original model or use measurements while on the CAD. Also, that comment regarding the use of grammarly go or some AI to make your writing look better just makes it look fake and hard to side with. The language used and unnecessary underlines give it away!!! But if you really wrote this good for you. I congratulate you for being one of the only creators to try and make a better version wholly redesigned by themself. I don’t even bother because I know the community and MakerWorld would never believe that I completely remodeled it on a CAD. If you have any advice onto bypassing this annoying obstacle in designing models it would be really helpful if you could give me advice on redesigning models completely and not getting taken down or punished.
My advice for you would be to:
-
Don’t upload models with a serial number on them that is traceable back to the company that made the model. Like maybe a saxophone mouthpiece.
-
Don’t take photos from a commercial website and use them for your model. Especially when it’s not the same model that is in the picture.
-
Don’t post in the community tab begging for boosts and offering to trade boosts.
My last piece of advice is if you do shady stuff on MW and get caught don’t come here and complain about it.
This is not directed towards anyone else in this thread… but Squareroot was uploading other people’s models and commercially sold models.
7 Likes
I think the issue is that recreating or duplicating another user’s design is still a derivative work. In the same way, If I were to redraw the Starbucks logo in a bigger size, I would not be allowed to use it in marketing. It doesn’t matter who drew it. It is the specific idea executed in a specific way with specific shapes. The CC license does not say anything about the files themselves being the Licensed Material. The executed concept should be treated as the Licensed Material. If the scoop was in a shape that had a widespread use that would be different. But the shape is unique, particularly the print orientation and the way that a support-free print was achieved. These things make the design unique enough that the design concept itself should be respected as part of what the license is protecting.
1 Like
yoiur post about USED TO BE A GROUP is correct. i don’t upload much stuff any more. I used to have fun doing it; and if a model existed that i thought could be improved, i’d improve it, and post it as a REMIX on that creator’s site, indicating what i did, and crediting the original person with the design. I did not care about royalties, etc, i just loved sharing stuff. I downloaded many useful items, and i uploaded many useful items. any more, it is "who is getting what roll of filament, ", “BOOST me”, join my patreon, etc. i just checked my computer. I have over 3,000 .STL files. half are downloaded; half are modified or created by me. anyway, just my two cents to the whole sharing/posting/etc issue
You are contradicting yourself here.
You are in effect saying that creators should be okay with others ripping off their designs.
Creators can make and upload what they wish. Rip-off artists, trying to turn a profit from the research, testing and ingenuity of actual creators should not be allowed to copy-paste the hard work of others.
If his design is “superior”, then that invalidates his entire argument that his design is not a derivative work, which is the main issue with the license.
1 Like
What’s this about widespread use? Should the original “designer’s” work be removed too because it’s also derivitive? Did the original poster violate these creator’s rights? Maybe we should scrutinize every single thing EVERYONE does and shares.
1 Like
Hold on there pardner… Me thinks you do not understand the distinction between trademarks and copyrighted material. A registered trademark is NOT allowed to be reproduced for anything that is not fair use. That’s the whole point of a registered trademark ® versus a trademark ™ versus copyright ©, so that nobody else can counterfeit your brand. This is entirely different from what has been discussed in this thread. These are two very different concepts.
2 Likes
None of the scoops you posted have the unique features of the Sabre Design scoop.
Namely:
- The handle meets the same plane as the opening of the scoop, and provides a broad surface for bed adhesion.
- The scoop body curves by 45 degrees, which orients the bottom face of the scoop at 45 degrees to the print bed
These two features are what allow the scoop to print without supports. It has been engineered that way. A scoop is not unique, but THIS scoop is uniquely designed. Real creators can see that, and respect it. Making an exact copy with the same design elements and features is a rip-off. There is nothing wrong with taking inspiration. Some might see these design elements and incorporate them into something entirely different. But seeing something cool and then just making a copy of it and then trying to justify acting outside of the terms of the license is just not cool.
Further, the pictures you posted emphasize my point in another way. Scoops exist in many different styles, yes. They are easy to come by. Why would someone see a scoop design on MakerWorld, and “really like it” so much that they wanted to spend the time and effort to re-build it from scratch in CAD? Because it is unique. That is the whole point.
Another problem is that TenMileCreations is licensing his file for commercial use, and potentially selling prints of the file on Etsy. Are you suggesting that anyone should be able to copy another person’s unique design and then sell the files or prints?
1 Like
Let’s get really real. How do you know the original poster didn’t steal from any of these creators? Should we evaluate everyone’s use license, and find out where their idea came from? Should we just ban them all becuase they obviously stole from a patented design. I’m sure everyone of those commercial images from my previous post paid the necessary license fees to sell a similar patented product.
And they are very similar to:
I mean an argument could be made for everything “similar” in design to a patent. This patented design could easily be printed without suppor.
1 Like
I think there are counterfeit implications here. The naming of the file nearly the same. The product photo featuring two copies of the product, same as the original. Failure to link to the original design page, or even mention the name of the creator. And selling the file on Etsy. These are all red flags and dubious at best.
They are different concepts, yes. But I was under the impression that most people can reason on an analogy. I was referring to the claim of originality made by TenMileCreations. Simply re-drawing another’s artwork does not make an original creation, but a derivative work. I’m not speaking on legality, I’m referring to a lack of originality being passed off as something new and respecting the work of other creators.
1 Like
Check the dates. That’s what I did.
No it couldn’t. There is not sufficient surface area for first layer adhesion, and the bottom of the scoop is oriented less than 45 degrees from the plane of the print bed. The handle design would not be sufficiently strong without full perimeters.
We’re not talking about patents here. You were talking about wanting MakerWorld to be a creator-friendly space. Part of that is not looking for legal loopholes to steal the designs of other creators and then sell the files online.
1 Like
@TenMileCreations CREDITED the original, respected the license by not making DIRECT changes, showed how he created HIS VERSION in CAD, showed the DIFFERENCES between the models, etc…
My OPINION, is that it is a superior model.
Futhermore based on all the other similar models on MakerWorld that haven’t been taken down, I would like to request @BambuLab reinstate @TenMileCreations.
Yes, actually it can, and it’s plenty strong. We might as well talk patents since you think design is what is important.
Actually, just for the records, Penta being Greek for five!
The Latin word for five is “quinque”.
I did steal one model but I truly had no Idea you could not do that. Once it was taken down I knew that was a rule. I have never done any infringements of the rules since so please don’t act like i still do.
You seem to be talking about things that are normally covered by patents, not copyrights. The CC license is for copyrighted things, it doesn’t address patent licensing.
If that one model is all that’s been taken down what “annoying obstacle in designing models” are you referring to?