I’m posting this in the MakerWorld section because this is where I see a lot of copycat designs… or are they???
Often, I come across something close to what I need but lacking a critical feature. For example, a clamp oriented at a 45-degree angle when I need it at 180 degrees, with no alternative available. In such cases, I replicate the idea in CAD and create my own version. But where’s the line between innovation, plagiarism, and outright IP theft?
Take this example: If I see a product on Amazon that was clearly engineered and fabricated for a specific purpose, and I draft a similar version in CAD to print my own, is that IP theft?
Or another scenario: I find a model on Thangs where the designer charges for it, but I reverse engineer their design and make my own version. Did I cheat them, or are some ideas so obvious as not meant to be protected?
Where does one draw the line?
The concept of Parallel Invention
This concept is often discussed in intellectual property disputes and is known as “simultaneous invention” or “parallel invention.” It occurs when multiple individuals or groups independently arrive at the same solution to a problem, often because the solution is the most obvious or effective under the circumstances—much like the invention of “the wheel.”
In the context of intellectual property, this phenomenon underscores how certain ideas or innovations become “ripe” for discovery, driven by shared needs, technological progress, or environmental factors, akin to parallel evolution in biology. It’s common to see this happen when one “Ah-ha!” moment occurs, sparking a cascade of independent and unique derivative ideas once the path has been revealed.
Actually, I’m not mixing up three questions at all. I’m specifically asking where the lines are drawn between those three concepts.
If it were black and white, we wouldn’t have intellectual property attorneys, patent infringement lawsuits, or counterfeit property laws. As 3D printing technology advances closer to the fictional “Star Trek replicator,” when will the line be crossed between the “influence” or “confluence” of ideas and actual theft?
Was that one original? Do they own the rights to be the only company ever to solve a problem that way?
This one is much greyer, if you are doing this for your benefit, then no, you haven’t cheated them. If you are doing it to share with others, then that is a different question entirely.
Neither of your examples could cite these as yo are aware of the other parts work and created your version in part or totality because of what they chose to do.
I see nothing wrong with this.
There isn’t a solution that solves your problem, you may base your solution on theirs, but the two solve different problems, if they are closely related.
For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that the concept is so simple but nevertheless unique, like let’s say and innovative new approach like combining an electric cattle prod with a mouse trap. Or taking the concept of a Hyperboloid and manufacturing a set of Chinese finger cuffs. You can’t patent the math but you can patent the invention applying the math.
Ok. Then let’s take a page out of the Chinese playbook and take it one step further.
What if I purchase a product and find that I don’t really like it? Or maybe, when I take it out of the box, it’s just not sized correctly for my application. Perhaps I need it to be larger or smaller, but no size small or size large is available. Naturally, I would return the product.
However, after reviewing it (as I always do with pictures), I later get inspired by the design because, despite searching, I still can’t find a product that fits my specific need. I then take the photos from my review, import them into CAD, trace the mechanical outline, and scale it up or down to suit my application.
One might argue this is fair use, but the inventor of the original idea might disagree—especially since they never offered a size large or size small themselves. Where does the line fall in this case?
As of now, this is for me. However, I prefer not to narrow this down to too specific an example, as that would negate the purpose of this discussion, which is to determine: where is the line? It also raises additional questions. What if I want to take what I developed and, in the spirit of open source and giving back to the community, post the model under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license? By doing so, I would be sharing a transformative design with significant input of my own, based on my work, which I am freely offering as long as others adhere to and flow down the same use permissions, maintaining the spirit of open source.
I would consider using the Standard Digital Licence.
Otherwise, you are essentially telling others that you trust their motives in extending your work while you are still concerned that you may or may not be on the correct side of the line.
I understand, but it’s really hard to answer because the line is rarely always in the same place.
I am making up some examples that I am unsure if they even represent your needs, so bear with me.
If you are designing a new G-clamp there are lots of models to look to for inspiration so create your own based on that research. This is not problematic to me, sharing is fine.
You have a product with a unique locking mechanism and a tool to manipulate the lock. You decide to make a new tool with an improved manipulation ability. Is there a patent on the product that prohibits the unique locking mechanism that would prohibit any reverse engineering in a country with no right to repair? Your answer answers itself. Either way, sharing would likely not be doable.
I am saying that they are three independent questions that don’t necessarily have the same answers. Something can be artistically original and illegal, or legal but morally wrong, or morally fine, but artistically a ripoff.
This isn’t quite correct, you seem to be advocating that personal use of copyrighted/patented IP is OK as long as you don’t sell/distribute it. But at least in the US this isn’t the case.
The big thing here that I seem to be seeing is that people tend to confuse copywrite, patent, and trademark law.
(We are ignoring the Licensing issue here), and I am in the US so that does color my arguments.
Mimicking something, is it a gear box or something similar? Not covered by copywrite, patent, or trademark, a gear is pure math and you cannot patent math.
Is it a trademarked item - NO you cannot use someone else’s trademark without their explicit permission (Disney, Lego, Apple, etc)
Is it copywrite protected? Are you going under the fair use doctrine? Fair use, if you don’t sell the item or make a profit in some way, you are ok. If you use it for your Master’s Thesis, and the Thesis ends up being published, you are not ok.
Now for the Ethical point of view… Ask permission, always ask the creator if it is ok to use their stuff. If they say ok, go for it, you are golden.
I specifically stated that I was not considering licensing in this argument. I was looking at copywrite law. Copywrite law does not consider licensing.
What is this supposed to mean? When do people ever create 3d models that are using some other model under fair use?
And “fair use” does not prohibit making a profit, those concepts are unrelated. I can publish a newspaper, for profit, that contains an excerpt of a copyrighted play that I’m writing a review on.
Publishing the newspaper for profit makes it so that you cannot use copywrite material in the newspaper, a critic of a play is specifically exempted under copywrite law, so not the same thing.
The thing is, copywrite law, protects the written code for the model. You cannot use the written code or publish it under copywrite law without the express permission of the copywrite holder. It does not protect the model itself, that falls under other laws. This is exactly the point that I was trying to make about people confusing the different laws as to what is allowed.
I find there are two parts to this question depending on what is being copied. If copying something artistic in nature, it is okay to copy technique to accomplish something, but should shy away from copying the form. For example, it is okay to paint like DaVinci, it is not okay to paint the Mona Lisa. The IP is in what is designed, not how.
On the functional side of models, it almost works the opposite. It is okay to copy what something does, but may not be okay to copy how it does it. The process to accomplish something is often what is protected by patent. For example 3D printing has been around for a while, but there were patents around forcing plastic filament through a heated nozzle to build up a product in layers. I’m sure the actual patent was more complex than that, but until it expired companies couldn’t copy that process without licensing it from the patent holder.
When things aren’t covered by patents is when the ethical part comes into play. As long as you aren’t copying from the original model directly or indirectly by using it as a reference, you are probably okay depending on intent. If you intend to replicate as is to bypass their income and share that with others, ethically bad. If you are adding functionality, then I would consider it okay but somebody might still complain. If it is a completely new model and you are copying the functional parts directly (actually slicing and copy/pasting the joints in a flexi) then not ethical. If you are replicating the functionality into your own model then that is okay (making holes teardrop shaped so they print easily without supports).
There’s 3 questions that really help you decide if what you are doing is ethical. Am I copying or am I replicating? Is it a unique technique to the creator or is it something you could learn from other sources? Are you intentionally adding value or intentionally taking away value? Once you’ve honestly answered those, I find there are very few ethics questions left.
I’m kind of in the same boat with a model I am working on.
My wife wanted a snowman candy dish for her desk at work. She found one on MW she really likes. I download it and then discovered it’s a bit sketchy in how it was built and I wanted to make a couple modifications besides. I tried to modify it to my liking and fix some of the problems, but it just made it worse. So I am basically recreating a model from scratch that is very similar, but built much better (at least IMHO). Of course everything is standard digital license now, so you can’t just post a remix. I’ll probably just keep it to myself to avoid any problems, but it could be a model that would work well for others, but I will just keep it to myself to avoid problems.