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 disagree. Each of those things are completely separate concepts. But I can see that you are confused at how that is the case. I think that is the heart of your post.
This is just not true. You can have things that are very clearly black-and-white but still need professionals. I work in the tech field where things are very much black-and-white, yet my expertise is still needed to explain how that is the case.
Innovation? Why does that matter? You are just solving a problem, not trying to take advantage of someone else’s work to benefit yourself and/or reduce their profit or take credit for their work. Everyone claims that Apple is innovative, but they don’t make anything new. They just take what already exists and package it in a way that is appealing. I had a few ‘smartphones’ before the iPhone existed.
Plagiarism? Again, you’re not trying to pass other people’s work as your own and take away credit from them.
“IP theft” is otherwise known as copyright infringement. And still, it has no bearing on this situation. It is not illegal to make your own copy of a concept. The illegality lies in distribution.
A more appropriate example would be a copyrighted image or photo. If you go to a photographer’s/artist’s website and download a copy of their work to use for your wallpaper, then are you stealing from them because you did not get a license to do so? Most photographers/artists don’t necessarily provide an explicit license you can use or purchase just for a wallpaper on your personal device. So, if you use their work for a purpose they have not explicitly authorized, then according to your ideas it would be “plagiarism” or “IP theft”? That’s just ridiculous.
Now in that same circumstance, if you use that person’s work in a public work for others, then you are using it in a way that reproduces their work for your own gain. That’s where it falls under copyright infringement. Fair use would be more like if you were writing an article about their work and show their work in a way that is to analyze it, and importantly you would also need to provide appropriate attribution.
To put it all very simply, it becomes unethical and/or illegal once you start to distribute their work or use it in a way that they have explicitly stated that they do not authorize or is otherwise inherently protected by copyright laws.
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.
Surely you were not expecting a perfect 100% accurate representation of the entire copyright legal system for the purpose of explaining some of the more basic concepts of copyright?
I included this specifically to help convey that the previous information was not intended to be a fully comprehensive explanation of copyright:
To be honest, I’m a bit annoyed at your response @mugglesmuggle, because I spent a good amount of time and effort trying to help @Olias understand the root of their questions and confusion, and you just completely nullified that effort by calling into question the validity of the whole thing by being pedantic about not including aspects of copyright that does not really need to be explored for the sake of this conversation.
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.