What is the etiquette for Rating, vs. Print Profile, vs. Remix?

MakerWorld
1

Edit for clarification: I’m asking what I SHOULD do. I’m not trying make a statement or propose anything. I also have no intention of taking any credit away from the original designers or presenting either of these as my own original design. I didn’t even think about “points”.

Also note, in both cases described below, I did start with the original print profile I downloaded from Makerworld and modified it. But I never printed either profile as originally downloaded. I only printed them after I modified them.

Original post…
In short, is there an etiquette for these two questions? Being a beginner, I don’t want to offend anyone for the first time I’m ready to upload something back to the site.

  • If I add a new print profile to a model, should I still rate the original print profile that it was based off of, even if I never actually printed that profile?

  • At what point does something warrant a remix vs. just uploading a profile to the existing model? And again, if I post as a remix, should I still rate the original profile that it was based on even if I never printed the original?

Background…

I’m not a designer. I’ve only had my X1C about a year and until now have only ever printed stuff I downloaded. I also don’t sell. I’m just a hobbyist so it’s for my own personal use.

But for the first time, I have two models where I’ve tweaked them and would like to share back.

  • In one case, all I did was paint a single-color model to make it multicolor, but it was a somewhat complex model (for me) that took a few hours to paint and get into some areas that weren’t easy to access to paint. (Admittedly, I’m a beginner so I’m sure it would have taken someone experienced much less time.)

  • In the other case, I did modify the model, but all within Bambu Studio. I took something that was thin and flat (like a coin), 2 color where the 2nd color was indented, and single sided, and I changed it to double-sided and made the 2nd color portion flush (to better facilitate the double-sided aspect so it wasn’t trying to print an indent upside down which would result in a terrible finish of the indented portion).

    • I do understand why the original designer designed it the way they did, to reduce waste on the color change, but this thing is small enough I didn’t care about the little waste it would create, and I really wanted it double-sided.

Thank you!

2

This is a hot topic here and there are strong opinions on posting new print profiles on other people’s models. Quite a few want that blocked without the original creator’s permission.

Not even printing the source model is a bit more of an angle.

If it was me, I’d only post on other people’s models with their permission. Soon after I got here I posted a profile on another person’s model that didn’t have a profile and set it to give him any points. I think now that I should have asked him but did not at the time. I hadn’t even considered all the other issues there were around this. On the plus side it turned into a bit of a cash cow for him so I don’t think he’s too upset. There’s definite value for printers in having good profiles here.

BUT, the reason there is strong sentiment on this is there are some who look for popular models and post profiles with minor changes to try to skim download points from the original creator. That cuts into the creator’s legitimate profit from their actual frequently hard work.

I haven’t uploaded profiles on anyone else’s model since I did the first time. I can’t speak for them but if it’s still an option on assigning points and you assign points to the original creator, many might not mind. If you keep the points for yourself (if they still allow that) you could move into the bad category in someone’s eyes even if that’s not how you intended it.

But on looking back and thinking about it I still should have asked the original creator first even though I gave him/her all the points.

3 Likes
3

There are already quite a few topics that are worth reading:

A look at the wiki also answers many questions:

My own opinion:

The days of scoring lots of points with print profiles and remixes are over. Sure, you can try, but you’re a little late to the party. You are trying to collect the last tiny remnants of gold from a mine that has been completely exhausted.

When it comes to points, it’s better to create your own 3D model. Print profiles are a waste of time, particularly if the original creator changes their mind and uploads their own print profile, resulting in yours being deleted. Or if the creator simply deletes their 3D object, then your profile will disappear too.

The same applies to remixes, which can be deleted at any time!

You won’t impress anyone with print profiles or remixes, as these are the lowest hanging fruits that require almost no effort. Sure, you can do that, but trust me, hundreds of people have had the same idea before you. It’s so uncertain to rely on them, as they can be deleted at any time. In the worst case, you’ll get negative points.

Remember, keeping something private is also an option that many people simply overlook! You still can then earn points with the good stuff.

But hey, that’s just my opinion, which may not be correct - it’s simply experience.

2 Likes
4

Thank you both. Good information. I also want to say, so that some of the below hopefully isn’t taken the wrong way, that with this reply I am not trying to make a counter argument. I do play a little bit of devil’s advocate but only to gather more information and better understand the positions for my own knowledge.

First, I want to clarify that my question is not about the points. I didn’t even know that someone could get points for profiles or remixes. I simply made tweaks to some existing print profiles that I think others might find beneficial, and I want to share it back with people. I’m not trying to take any credit away from the creators, or claim that anything was my own design.

I’m also not trying to impress anyone. I’m admittedly not a designer. I would have loved it if someone else had already made these changes and made them available but they didn’t, so I’m just trying to share back.

By your replies, it seems like you’re proposing that remixes and 3rd party profiles shouldn’t be allowed at all, period. You can propose that, but that’s not where things are at right now. The concept of remixes has been around for a long time and is supported on other platforms besides Makerworld. I’m not sure about print profiles. Are print profiles unique to Makerworld?

Maybe the points aspect might be new with Makerworld (I don’t know), but not the basic concept of remixes.

So, in the context that remixes and print profiles are a thing and are generally accepted, and that I don’t have any nefarious motives around points or stealing credit for original work… (…or please explain further why I should not accept that context…)

RetroSharky, I did read through both of those forum posts and wiki pages. The “Inspired vs Remix” post is a similar question, except I fully understand I did not redesign anything or “start from scratch” like that poster. I fully acknowledge that I modified the existing profile and I DO want to give credit to the designer.

At the very least, I feel like my changes would qualify as remixes. I’m just not sure they are worth a full remix vs. simply a separate profile in the same model.

I’ll also mention that I do normally rate print profiles that I print from Makerworld, including comments and pictures.

Beyond that, if it matters, in both cases…

  • I did start with one of the profiles already on the model’s page, and modified it. That modified print profile is what I have to share back up to the site. But I never printed the original profile as originally downloaded. I only printed the profile after I had modified it.

    • My question about whether I should still provide a rating on the original profile even if do upload my profile, or as a remix, was specifically to ask if I should give credit to the original profile I started with, even though I never actually printed it in its original form.

  • The model is listed with the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license.

  • There are already other print profiles from other people who are not the designer. In one case, the ONLY print profiles are from other people. I don’t see a print profile at all from the designer on the one model.

5

I enjoy when people add print profiles to my models as long as their work is significant enough to warrant it. Even minor geometry modifications seem fine to me. Most of the time they’re trying to help my model reach a wider audience and I appreciate that. However these are my personal views toward print profiles, and likely not in line with Makerworld’s current rules.

1 Like
6

Thanks for your additional feedback.

I’ll mention, there ARE NO formal rules that address this basic question, at least not that I can find.

The wiki page that RetroSharky linked to earlier is purely about what makes “good” profile CONTENT.

It makes NO mention at all of rules or etiquette about WHETHER it’s ok to upload print profiles to someone else’s model, save one. Under “Prohibited practices” the only mention that’s even related is for violating a NoDerivatives license, which is obvious.

But if the model uses a license that doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, then there are no formal rules or guidelines, that I can find, against uploading a profile to another designer’s model.

(Whether there SHOULD be formal rules for it or not is a different question proposed by others, but it is NOT MY question.)

1 Like
7

Okay, then let’s play a game of devil’s advocate.

  • If you’re not concerned about points or acknowledgement, then you could ask the designer. Quite simply, that would be the end of the story.

Instead, you decided against it and chose to write a gigantic novel, bending your attitude back and forth until someone says, ‘You’re doing great.’ Believe me, we’ve seen this happen many times before: users writing entire novels in the hope of being confirmed, failing to do the obvious and ask the designer in the process. This follows on from deliberately misinterpreting comments in order to twist the topic:

You can do whatever you like, but your behaviour shows all the classic signs of wanting to break the rules and disregard information from the community. We’ve seen it many times before.

Let’s just wait and see. You’ll understand later when your remixes and print profiles are deleted again because that’s often the next step. ‘Why was my stuff deleted?’ Then you can write another novel about it.

In short, be straightforward and ask the designer if you want to know for sure. Don’t hide behind words as your personal defence shield. There is no reason to be afraid of the digner and not ask him personally unless you know you are doing something wrong.

You should read through the wiki again. It clearly defines both ‘print profile’ and ‘remix’. Fortunately, this is one of the few areas where there is little room for interpretation.

The question that arises here is: Why are you so keen to upload the design at all costs without consulting the designer? Why are you trying to start a discussion while ignoring any advice you receive?

TLDR: What are you actually trying to achieve here? The rules were posted to you. There shouldn’t be any more questions. Of course, the community is happy to help if anything is unclear.

Sorry for the harsh words, but you wanted to play a game of devil’s advocate.

Edit: To add something positive: It has never been easier to learn CAD than it is now; even children can do it. I assume that you are a very intelligent person, judging by the way you write. It should be child’s play for you to learn something like TinkerCAD. You can learn it in a weekend. Believe me, your time and energy would be better spent there. We have 12-year-olds here in the forum who have done this, as well as grandpas over 70.

The grandpas had some trouble installing Bambu Studio and turning on the printer, but they managed it anyway to TinkerCAD, figuratively speaking.

You just need to set your priorities and use your intelligence wisely, then you’ll succeed. :+1:

8

Actually, point of order here. The license the original is posted under overrides everything else (which I’m sure most everyone understands). If it doesn’t allow remixes then that’s the end of that. Anything people do with the original creator’s files has to abide by the license they were published under.

If they do allow remixing and someone wants to post a profile on an existing model page, there are a lot of people who don’t like that simply because they want to curate their own pages. I think it was fixed already but there was a time when 3rd party profiles pushed the designer’s profiles out of sight which really chapped some designers - understandably.

Just my opinion but I think one should always ask the designer before posting profiles on their model page. There’s been a push to remove the ability altogether. No idea where that is or how likely it is to be put in place though.

And I have no idea if the points questions are still there. I saw that almost two years ago and haven’t tried since so it may or may not still be a factor.

1 Like
9

That’s exactly what I meant in my comment - 100%!

The reason is that: The creator can change the licence at any time. This has happened many times before. Even if you can prove that the creator allowed remixes at some point, MakerWorld will still tend to side with the creator. People don’t write that to annoy OP, but because many have already fallen into this beginner’s trap.

However, the entire discussion is flawed because OP cannot distinguish between a remix and a print profile, and has now expanded it to several other topics.

The consensus is that he should first understand the basics of what a remix is and what a print profile is. After that, the next step would be to contact the creator if necessary. I mean, it’s good that he’s asking, but actually, the topic could have been over a few posts ago if he had asked the creator.

10

A print profile to an existing model cannot have any geometry mods. It is against the rule.

Regarding the model:

In that case, if you have modified the original model and the modifications are significant enough, you can post yours as a remix. Make sure to give credit to the original designer in your description. You can’t post your model as a profit profile under the orginal model’s page.

Regarding the print profile:

Regardless of the license of the original model, the current rule allows users to add print proifiles to the original model’s page. However, there are requirements on the print profiles. The changes have to be meaningful. I don’t have the link to the rules at my hand, but I remember it provides some examples of what are not considered a valid new profile. Go find and read about the rule on this before posting the profile.

BTW, like some other designers, I have suggested MW change the rule to let the original model designer decide if users’ print profiles are allowed on their model page. If our wishes are granted, there will be no 3rd party profiles without original designers’ explicit permission.

You also asked about rating of the original print profile. It’s all up to you. If you didn’t print using the original profile, then you don’t have to. But if you want and you are allowed to rate without using the profile, you can rate it as good gesture, even if only for the quality of the model.

1 Like
11

Thank you everyone for all of the input.

I get it, I will ask the designers. I sent them messages. One already replied with permission.

I WANT to do the right thing, and that was my intention of my original post, asking how to do it while respecting the original designers and give proper credit.

But the initial replies threw me off. I am familiar with licensing. Both of the models I’m referring to use the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license, which grants permission to modify and share as long as proper credit is given. So it caught me off guard to hear that I needed to ask permission on a model that is using a license that already grants that permission.

I have a genuine follow-up question for my own understanding. If a designer is concerned with all of this, why don’t they use a different license that restricts modification? If either of these models had such a license, I would have just known not to upload anything and wouldn’t even have asked.

Thank you for this. If NO geometry changes are allowed in print profiles, that definitely drives my change for the one model to a remix. I do believe it’s a significant enough change to warrant a remix.

Thank you again. The reason I asked is that I wasn’t sure if it was bad etiquette to rate a profile that I hadn’t actually printed.

Otherwise yes, I intend to give the profile a good rating as a good gesture and acknowledgement of the designer.

I started with an existing print profile and modified it significantly before I printed it. Makerworld still sees it as having printed that profile and allows me to rate it. But I never printed the profile before I modified it so I can’t actually speak to the print quality of the original, unmodified profile.

It’s good to know where that concern comes from. Yes, I started on Makerworld in November 2024 and at least by that point, designer print profiles always appear at the top of the list.

12

Please explain. How could one delete someone else’s remixes?

13

When you attempt to post a remix on MakerWorld, the system checks if the original license permits remixing. If it does, the remix is posted and remain valid forever, regardless of changes in the status of the original license permits. At least this is what I experienced.

1 Like
14

No, this topic has already been discussed many times in this forum.

You have to prove it - because it’s not automatically tracked. You have to take screenshots or message from the creator to prove it. Some users have had that exact problem: they had to prove to MakerWorld that that remixing was permitted at a certain point in time.

The creator can change their licence at any time. You must prove that you had permission from the creator to remix it. The system does not do this automatically for you; it is your personal responsibility. Even if it is stored in the system, MakerWorld requires you to provide personal proof in the event of a dispute.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying in several comments, and nobody has to believe me - there are enough examples here in the forum. No idea where the myth comes from that it’s valid forever, not on MakerWorld, only with proof.

And as a second step, you have to prove that it is a meaningful change and worth staying online. That is then the next dispute.

I would just like to remind you of the Benchy controversy, where almost all platforms had to take it offline because the license changed, or to be more precise, there were problems with it. The Benchy-Gate…

1 Like
15

MakerWorld made it very simple. You cannot post a remix if the original model did not have the right license. If you can post, it means it was legal.

1 Like
16

Well of course that only applies if you post it as a remix correctly, unlike a lot of remixes.

Some people don’t like to use the correct process. A attribution in the description is nice, but it does not give full attribution to the original model.

2 Likes
17

Nevertheless, the creator can pull the plug and take it all down.

I would just like to remind you of the most popular print of 2024 to respectively beginning of 2025: The Flexi Wolf by a well-known creator. He became dissatisfied with MakerWorld and moved to Cults3D. When he left, he took all the print profiles and remixes from others with him. Appeals by affected users were unsuccessful.

Screenshot 2026-02-20 044003
Screenshot 2026-02-20 0440031920×952 128 KB

Being theoretically right and being proven right are two completely different things, especially on MakerWorld. Your definition is what is written in the rules, my definition is experience and seeing what happens around us. Support does not always act according to the rules.

In case of doubt, the creator is deemed to be right because MakerWorld certainly does not want to be involved in a licensing dispute.

1 Like
18

Extreme things could happen. That being said, simply following the rules is the best advice I can give anyone here.

3 Likes
19

It is a good recommendation.

Although rules inside and outside MW can be very different. MW has built safeguards within their platform, but that doesnt apply to any other unless you are using a Exclusive license (which doesnt allow remixes anyways).

For example, MW gives the message of “model remixed before license was restricted” or something like that. While overall, that would make remixes violate the new license.

IMHO, licenses should not change after a model is originally posted. It causes more problems than it solves.

3 Likes
20

I have to say something about this, because it’s not entirely true; it’s only half the truth:

  • That’s only true if you make a remix from MakerWorld to MakerWorld.

This does not apply if you use other external websites, as many people do. The licences are located external. Much of what you see on MakerWorld as remixes originated on older sites, such as: Thingiverse (2008), Cults (2014), PrusaPrinters (2019 - now Printables), even GitHub … - Bambu has only been around since 2020.

Bambu does not check whether you comply with external licenses; that is your responsibility.

Take a look at where most remixes originate from - external sites.