Welcome to the twisty and tangled world of copyright management, Bambu Labs!
FWIW, this problem was utterly foreseeable and requires more software horsepower than they (Bambu) probably thought they’d have to create to launch this new content curation portal. Kind of shame on them for that, but they wouldn’t be the first to find out that this is harder than it looks:
Figure out how to fingerprint an STL with high accuracy. You can’t rely on the community to tell you when to “copyright strike” something, as YouTube found out a long time ago.
When they have fingerprinting working, they will also need store the metadata from wherever their crawlers are finding STL files and determine if the model is freely redistributable (open license).
Work with the big STL distribution sites to get fingerprints for the commercial content - an industry standard fingerprint format will probably be necessary here so they’ll most likely have to work within a consortium to pull this off. Once everyone has a common pool of “pay to play” content fingerprints to share, even the community can access it to do a little self-policing in a more automated fashion.
Agree on some common blockchain (cough)-style signature mechanism that allows original artists to identify their own work and associate their publishing key with any account that they publish from. If they remove or re-generate their publishing key, that means their work is effectively withdrawn, as it should be their right to do (maybe they hate the first version and want to take it offline while they make a better one?).
Note: A fingerprint is not the original work. It’s just a “fuzzy hash” that allows you to spot the work even if someone has changed a surface or two in an attempt to steal it without noticeably changing its appearance. A complete remix with substantial enough changes to constitute “new work” would not match. This is the consortium level work, since getting this right is “hard” and you certainly would not want to do it a bunch of times.
This is also why this is not some DMCA / RIAA / Hollywood scenario we are talking about either, where we are helping some $bigCorp take down YouTubers that had the temerity to cite 2 seconds of a song as part of a much larger video on music theory. This is about protecting small artists who are squeezing out a very meager living making cool things in a brandh new marketplace. That makes signed “original attribution” even more important.
C’mon, Bambu, you are known as the innovators in this space - nothing that has been described above is beyond the realm of possibility, it’s mostly just a lot of leg work.
Most sites, like YouTube, ask you directly when reporting: “are you the copyright holder?” If you aren’t, you have no legal claim. Sucks someone reported your share. I’d always wondered when that would happen. Seemed inevitable.
You can request a randomized string in makerworld which you then put in your bio on for example printables, then you can connect the two accounts and import models and that kind of stuff. I do not longer have the string in my bio but I can still import models, so think that’s sort of a precaution. I highly doubt I will get copyright striked from an account I have previously proven were mine. But that’s just my assumptions, who knows, I’ve had to fight wild copyright accusations before…
Wasn’t that solved ages ago? At least I don’t have any issues importing models, just did it yesterday. Seen multiple people with imported models, most likely printables. If your still having issues I’d suggest you look that up because I think that was solved ages ago.
Same thing happen to me. I used the mini octopus and put a pumpkin head on it pumpkinpus I had it on printables as remix and on thingverse remix. When posting on makerworld for some reason the original wasnt allowing remix but only on maker world. So i posted as remix from printables. Model got to 1k downloads for Halloween and bam reported and taken down. I did the whole ticket thing they ask for verification and still nothing. I think they do it so they dont have to give out point. So whats stopping anybody from tagging everybody work as copy right and reporting it.
This is absurd.
It makes me wonder if I’ll post a design in Maker World.
Definitely not this. I’ve had my models stolen multiple times. Taking them down quickly is critical because trends start building in favor of the thief and against the creator which are hard to reverse.
OK maybe I should have said, “as easy” then. It’s a tough one to administer. I generally just don’t upload anything I don’t want copied.
What about a Kind of Watermark? At a place that cant bei change easily?
Just had my first model taken down for copyright, and linked to a similar model on cults but mine is is a collection of 12 models and clearly different as mine snap together where theirs is held together with hopes and dreams. If a mod had spent 2 seconds looking it would have been obvious they are not the same models, i have a feeling its mostly a automated process.
Same. It was a remix of my Friends Model, following all Licenses, had a Printed Picture etc.
Reason: “due to violating the Community Guidelines”
200 Credits deducted
so even though i have all the fusion360 files to show i made everything myself i get the following reply
For sure there is a solution, no one claims to need the “perfect solution”, just a solution better than nuts will do the job.
Today there is nothing just: Claim => guilty.
A solution to get justice would be a method where the attacked on get’s the possibility to defense himself.
By posting it on MW aren’t you effectively allowing it to be shared publicly? If you changed it from Private to Public on Cults, MW would no longer have that reason to take it down.
So if you prohibit the distribution/sharing of your product by license, you are not allowed to distribute it yourself?
As the author, you can of course do what you want, the license applies to others and not to yourself.
Have you already changed the license conditions for your model? You could do this and inform Bambulab that you have now authorized the sharing of your product.
The one on cults is not me, its just the reason its been taken down but its not the same as mine and i have showed MW all the proof i have that i made it myself. But apparently because this guy got hold of the svg before me he now apparently owns the rights to it even though after searching it seams a few people have made the same designs before them.
There will always be some people in the world who make almost identical or at least very similar designs. Even if one has no knowledge of the other.
so after the initial declined appeal i added more information and some links to where i sourced the svg files and added my f3d file but makerworld hasn’t responded.
do i need to open a new dispute or should just adding more info to the original mean they look again?
Turns out i didn’t need to open a new appeal and its been restored.