Looking for community views, as don’t want to go making accusations unfairly, especially as the user in question seems to be a legitimate designer (more followers and models than me on makerworld etc.).
I’ve come across two models - that appear very similar to my own, both in concept, appearance and I believe in the model itself.
I’ve downloaded their model and compared it my own originals - they are not the same, but appear uncannily similar - I suspect they took my model and did some basic simplification of it in meshmixer etc.
Would people consider that an unreasonable copy when not given with attribution? At what level of editing/simplification of an original model does it become acceptable?
However my nervousness is that the end of the day my model is of a flower - lots of people like flowers, and it is very possible if someone started modelling the same flower as me they’d end up with a very similar result… however I am quite suspicious.
I really don’t want to post links to the models in question in case its unfounded. But I’ve attached a screenshot of the raw models in fusion from my comparison of the two - my original is on the left, new one on the right.
What do you people think - should this be reported? Or best to give benefit of the doubt?
Scanned a real world daffodil with a revopoint Pop3, then repaired the scan and thickened it in meshmixer and then printed on my P1P. I’ve then done further work in meshmixer to split the model, add connector peg and make a longer stemed version.
Do you think scanning a physical natural object gives you some kind of copyright protection?
I have had some discussion on this as Reddit as well and I think I agree with the consensus view on there.
So as an update on my view:
Does seem high chance the person has edited my model. But they’ve changed it enough to be impossible to prove especially when it’s a generic item like a flower, and when they’ve spent the time editing it so much it’s at least not a lazy copy/ripoff.
Also life is too short so no point making a fuss, as long as people are getting to print and enjoy models that I’ve helped make in whatever small way then I’m happy
No issue with what you’ve said, but just as a point - 3d scanning flowers is hard.
It takes me a long time to get a good scan and to spend time repairing it and editing it to make it 3d printable while trying to keep it as close to life like as possible.
I’m obviously not wanting to copyright a daffodil! But equally I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be a bit annoyed if someone takes my model and edit its (if they have) rather than having to go through the effort of scanning or modelling from scratch themselves.
People will mostly find these kinds of things with searches. Change the name of your model posting to something like “the original version others copy” or “best quality” and the crummy copy won’t get any traffic. You’ll annoy them.
Yes scanning a natural object gives the person scanning the object a copyright on that image, just like a photographer has copyright of a an image of they took, in this case a flower. Now you can’t copyright the “flower”, meaning others can take their own pictures/scans of the flower, HOWEVER, it does not give other people the right to use your picture/scan for their own work.
The catch is proving the second model is directly based off your scan. In this case , I think it would be almost impossible to prove the second model is based from your model.
there is nothing that really suggests this is a copy, it looks like the same species of flower, so naturally they would look similar. unless you have some sort of specific indication that this is a copy other than “looks similar”?
Scanning can in fact be used to reverse engineer and produce duplicated physical objects without the original mechanical drawings. Doing so in no way extends any rights to the original to the person doing the scanning. In fact, selling a duplicate of the object based off the scan would probably not be legal.
These kinds of situations are covered by patent law, not copyright.
Now, if you scanned a natural object like a flower to create a 3D model, that would be “original artwork” and covered by copyright.
So I think it depends on the type of object being scanned.
Saying that you “Copyright” ANYTHING is NOT a copyright. I am a filed musician and photographer. You have to register a copyright. You just don’t run around throwing that word about. CC licensing is actually a better route IMO. No registration required and no fees. But, NOT copyright. My copyrights cost me a LOT of time and money. Most of my works today are licensed under CC4.0. But, tracking that stuff down and dealing with offenders is all on me. And with over 8500 published photos out there, it is a real PITA. And honestly, I am not even sure you can copyright a model. I guess what I am getting at is this, if you are going to post your models to the internet, at all, you are going to accept loss. If not now, down the road somewhere.
Just a note of clarification here, as a filed musician too. (US-specific)
A work receives a copyright the moment it is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression”. This does not require filing - it is automatic. Scribbling a poem on a napkin conveys copyright to the author.
Filing provides you the clear, legal evidence of ownership, and allows you to bring an infringement suit in event of a violation. And yeah, it’s too expensive! $125 for paper filings now? When I filed back in the late 1980s it was $20.
