I am not a creator like the wide definition of the term. I made niche stuff I don’t feel the need to share as project since are most spacers, supports, stands for vials and rad detectors.
For the rest of the time I enjoy detailing per color the models I print for myself.
The fist face smash was he mandalorian’s rifle. perfectly printed, in the end I noticed the wrong paint on the stock. shared like that…
Then I downloaded some w40k weapons, also bad coloured.
I started to spend hours to paint these model I was interested in, to have them printable 100% color, squeezing the H2D capabilities but without compromises on the final output.
So the question is can I share this stuff ? I don’t need points or such as much I don’t need the supermarket’s app for having discounts (and track and profile me when I buy the lettuce ) but I think someone would like some finely colored prints, optimized for multi nozzle devices.
I am also tweaking the Christmas tree kit card to have it with another language (local) and it will be blue like our flag, can I just share it apart with mention ? no ? yes ?
and what about the models aren’t there anymore. I have a folder with a ton of weapons that disappeared from the site, I don’t know when but they aren’t there anymore
Simple rule: If you didn’t create the model yourself, you don’t have any rights to it. Not even if it has been taken down from the site.
How can you protect yourself in the future? Pay attention to the license. As the comment above you already said: Pay attention to Creative Commons.
What can you do if the models have disappeared from the site? It’s too late now, so it’s tough luck. In that case, you need to take a photo beforehand that the original creator has expressly allowed you to modify, remix or upload. After all, it is your responsibility to be able to prove it.
Now you can either learn from this or search for the original creator and check whether they have stored the CC license somewhere else.
It all depends on who is checking at MW or if it was reported by the Creator.
I printed a model and found out some parts would be better at a different orientation. Uploaded the profile & all was good.
Then my profile became more popular than the creators & MW took it down.
Told me that changing the orientation wasn’t enough for a profile & was against the rules.
It’s so simple that you can do it in CAD in a day, even if you don’t have much prior knowledge of any CAD programme. It’s even easier since you already have an idea of what it should look like, and it’s actually only 2D. Just build a similar one and add your own twist. Just don’t copy it exactly, but make it your own version. So that it doesn’t count as a remix, but is truly something of its own.
Coincidentally, at the same time, someone asked about free options for CAD software:
I have not posted anything on MW yet but I see in comments that quite a lot makers have the “Standard Digital File License” selected and are happy if someone else improves their models (even the license terms don’t allow remixing).
So my guess (again, haven’t posted anything) is, that “Standard Digital File License” is either preselected or the term “standard” sounds for several creators that this is the way to choose.
Considering on other platforms like printables where there is a much higher percentage of items with relatively open license where at Makerworld nearly all the items I’m checking are at restricted licenses there is a good chance that this is not intentionally selected this way on MW.
@Blaster
Anyway, as I mentioned before: Speak to the authors. I have seen a lot “Standard” licensed items with very good remixes where original authors even supported it.
Yes I also followed that thread and I’ve just installed fusion. without the topic I wouldn’t find the tiny link for the personal use, at the bottom of the page, clogged by a huge popup that left me only at the end of the scroll flashing 2800€ lol…
Once I wrote to a dude offering to send the perfectly painted project, H2D optimized, back to him for adding it to his own stuff (I have an H2D I optimize for her) He said no because “lot of people is already complaining about the purge waste” yes it does not have sense.
I will surely -sigh- start to read the text while downoading stuff… like watching the cut scenes…
“Standard Digital File License” is automatically preselected when uploading content. This is unfortunate for remix culture, but it has sadly become necessary. Too many users upload direct copies of 3D models everywhere without asking or acknowledging the author.
Creative Commons is a great achievement, and I am still a big advocate of it. But here’s the thing. Not on MakerWorld. Now that 3D printers are affordable for everyone, including children, it has unfortunately become common practice not to read the rules and simply copy anything that isn’t covered by a ‘Standard Digital File Licence’. Even that offers no guarantee of protection.
Things used to be different. Since 3D printing became popular, which has had positive effects, of course, but also negative ones, most creators don’t want remixes to be allowed.
You might be absolutely right here but just because it’s a standard license it won’t prevent it. I’m not saying this is right that people do so.
But what it does: It’s holding off people, who do follow licenses, to improve models.
And from my experience: Many functional models (basically all I have downloaded so far) have significant flaws, simply because the authors are unexperienced with 3D printing I guess (good example that immediately shows a lack of experience is a fillet on the base layer. you’ll find tons here). But you are - in most cases - not allowed to improve them. Means also: Creators don’t learn from their mistakes.
Yes. I’m agreeing here, too.
When I started 3D printing was a thing for real makers (not talking about some big american printer company who held tons of patents) but now, with closed-source printers and market places where the focus is on earning points that can be monetarized things are different now.
I personally mainly build tools, small stuff, that is helpful for craftsmanship and I publish them always with at least STEP files, in some cases F3d files, too.
But: I don’t allow commercial usage (since I’m creating things with the free version on Fusion and I’m respecting their licensing, of course) and I don’t upload the models here at Makerworld, because there are simply better platforms that live the open source spirit where most items are uploaded with licenses that allow modification.
I mean, why should I upload CAD files to a platform like makerworld where most items use a very restricted license?
Also, Makerworld is the only platform of this kind that I know where you can’t rate items.
So coming back to the opening post: This is something that might be helpful for @Blaster: Simply check other platforms, too. I’m not saying Makerworld is bad. But you sound like you want to be able to tinker, to share. And for this, from my experience, there are simply better platforms out there.
But I do it for the H2D I have, then an H2C owner should pick them and re-optimize for a multi nozzle printer, starting from a pre-optimized file, and so on.
And that still doesn’t provide legal justification or permission to violate their copyright.
These kinds of threads get posted here frequently and also frequently - the excuse to violate copyright is “the creator didn’t make it the way I would”.
The answers are clear and unambiguous. If the license doesn’t allow remixing, move on. Or make your own independent version that doesn’t violate copyrights. But when the creator licenses it disallowing remixing, if you remix and post, you open yourself to points getting yanked and models being pulled and other punitive actions.
No amount of arguing or justification will change that.
And unfortunately arguing these points puts people in the same bucket as those who don’t care about improving models and are just looking to benefit from other peoples’ work. Instead, if there is a model you think could be improved, make your own from the ground up and explain why it’s better either in the description or in a post or something. Be part of the quality models you want and explain why your techniques are more correct.
It would have been nice if you would have quoted my sentence before that one, too.
Did someone here in this thread?
For me personally:
If I find model is great and the “technical quality” is bad I modify it for myself, use it for myself and that’s it.
That’s legal in the part of the world where I live. I must not distribute it in any way, of course.
what I found yesterday is that tree is probably a recycled model itself. it has just the part put into the frame in different positions, but still the same. plenty of them around.
other models from the same source are just a real ton of copyright infringement stuff. (marvel, disney and others)
That’s usually the case. Somehow, no one seems to care anywhere, not even on MakerWorld, when you consider all the IPs (i.e. brands). But, for some reason, it ends up affecting you personally for the strangest of reasons.
Disney, Nintendo and so on have turned a blind eye so far, but that’s too far off-topic. Nevertheless, I feel you.
) but I think someone would like some finely colored prints, optimized for multi nozzle devices.
