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.
My completed model is the blue one. The red ones are from another designer. I rebuilt the model from scratch and changed the design in a few key ways:
-made the model at a higher resolution so curves are smooth.
-Reshaped the model to have 3mm walls throughout.
-change the size and shape of everything
-have the eyes and nose separate to save on wasted AMS time.
-nose is now a carrot
-hat is removable. Underneath is an upside-down LED tea light to light up the inside of the snowman.
The only thing I directly used is the hat. Even though it is a bit low res, I like the shape and decided to leave it as is. The designer’s models are both exclusives. I contacted the designer and told them of the changes. I also told the I planned on not including the hat in my model. I would have a link to theirs so people would have to get it there and thus the designer would get points that way.
I made it for my wife’s desk at work. I haven’t posted it yet but not sure I should. I’m trying to do things the right way and give credit to the original as well as sending them some traffic to be fair. But I don’t want to have issues with Bambu.
If you mean “directly used” literally, that could be a problem.
If you didn’t, I think you are just making trouble for yourself be referencing the other design at all in your listing. If you are not posting it to “not have issues with Bambu” you are way over concerned about it. They routinely take down unrelated models and leave up direct copies. Also someone else, in fact 20 people, could report your model as a “copyright violation” of the other one even if the original author gave you his blessing, and makerworld will take it down. Really, don’t reference the other model at all in your submission.
I could just give the model to the original designer and let them post it if they want. I really just wanted a nice Christmas candy dish per my wife’s request. The original design, although a good concept, just was not executed to the standards I wanted. The low resolution and waste of AMS usage were my main beefs with it. I don’t need the points but would love for others to enjoy it.
Maybe you guys could help clarify a patent issue for me. I copied an object with a patent number on it. I would like to upload the design for others to use. Now in researching the pat number I see that the patent has expired (20 years). In my opinion I can now copy the design and share with people. Since the object is utilitarian and not particularly mind blowing in design, I’m under the impression that copyright etc shouldn’t be an issue. Any thoughts?
I think you’re confusing Patent Law with Copyright law. Although the two fall under the general category of Intellectual Property and often are regulated in most countries under the same agencies, they are very different categories.
In the case of a Patent that has expired… well… it’s expired, no need to even mention it. Nobody give reference to an incandescent light bulb do we?
I mean… I question how much this site cares about these things. How many models here are based on existing IPs? I’ve seen tons of models for things like Pokemon, Marvel, DC, Star Wars, etc etc. Not to mention printable versions of games like Ticket to Ride, Catan, and others.
They care about it just like any other site, if they get a takedown notice on a model they take it down. Other than being informed how would they be able to know if someone has a license for some particular IP or not?
I find this discussion interesting. It also made me think about a couple models I made for my job. I have several adapters I recreated for very specific tools. Some are easy. I remade a metal ring of a certain size with a plastic ring of the same size. It is not a unique design and as far as I can determine, the metal ring isn’t available from anyone, anyway. I don’t feel there is any issue with measuring the size and making a new one. But this discussion has made me think about a different specific adapter where I basically recreated an adapter that is available for purchase. I measured the needed openings and made something that is very similar in looks and fits the same requirements for connecting the two parts. I suppose that is one that would be wrong to sell–not that there are more than a handful of people who would ever use it. (My job is exceptionally specialized.) I actually plan to send in a few of my designs to the manufacturers so they can test them and make better versions available to my fellow techs. But I had not considered if recreating the adapter would be right. I will ask the manufacturer. That specific part is not for general customer use and worthless except for the specific use that means you already have their expensive product to start with.
