Over the weekend, a model I remixed over a year ago was removed AND they clawed back what appears to be all points I ever earned for this model. I had originally remixed it to eliminate the need for printing with an AMS (previously had 32 color swaps, got it down to 1).
My appeal failed.
If they want to remove the remix, fine whatever, but also clawing back tons of points for a model which has been successful and benefited them is really harsh and unfair. If anything it should be a flat penalty amount, that is not huge, maybe 200pts or something?
Makerworld has been benefiting from this model regardless of whether or not they now consider it to be an unworthy remix â people have been engaging with their platform, using their printers, and buying filament⌠yet we are being retroactively punished now for breaking a fairly subjective rule that they have decided to start enforcing more strictly now?
That just doesnât make any sense. There should not be such harsh consequences beyond simply disabling the model. Perhaps for serial repeat offenders, but in the case of models uploaded a long time ago, which they have been benefiting from, there should not be point clawbacks.
It may be the person who posted the original just found out about your remixed model and complained? What was the license on the original? If it allowed remixes then carry on and ignore the interruption. But if they didnât allow remixes in their license then I totally get clawing back every point your remix ever made since all were awarded in violation of the original license.
What were the terms of the original license and did they include allowing remixes?
You cannot post a remix on MakerWorld if the original license does not allow remixes. It is baked in the submission algorithm.
So, if I post a remix, at the very least, the system is sure that the original license allows remixes.
One thing the system does not check is if it is a real improvement or just a cosmetic modification.
In this case I suspect that simply changing the order or the number of the color changes was not deemed complex enough to justify a remix. That should have been just another print profile that should have been uploaded on the same page as the original model.
That being said I agree with a grandfathering clause. If the system did not caught the mistake in a given time, letâs say a month, then the maximum penalty should be removing the model with no point deduction.
I donât doubt that at all but I bet it wasnât always there. In the recent certify photos as real fire drill I found when resubmitting models they got re-evaluated for various issues like time to slice and prime tower encroachments - things apparently added to the algorithm since my models had been originally submitted since they got rejected until I fixed them. (And the encroachments were because they changed prime towers and orphaned the settings we could use before to not encroach).
I donât know and am not saying itâs how it happened but it might be that at the time the remix was posted the check wasnât in place? But OP would need to say since he would likely know.
I agree on grandfathering to an extent. Anything not in violation of otherâs rights should be treated more carefully if found in violation of rules that didnât exist at the time of posting. But I do think any IP violations should be penalized the full amount of the benefit plus punitive assessments if the behavior was a willful violation of rules or IP.
This may not work. Imagine a speeding driver telling the police who stopped them: âOfficer, I had been speeding for two hours before you stopped me. Your time window of giving me a ticket has passed.â
yes that was their justification. I donât particularly disagree, however I posted this thing so long ago now that it was a rude awakening to see a big points penalty pop up seemingly out of nowhere. The license on the original model is CC sharealike and it was attributed correctly, it wasnt a license issue.
This is a good analogy though. It feels like getting pulled over, then, the officer looking through the logs on your car and issuing tickets for every single time you ever exceeded the speed limit since you got your license.
yeah, my argument is primarily that the punative points clawback for this type of violation makes no sense. They benefited from the remix being available, and used by their users, printed with their printers so simply taking the model down is enough.
A better analogy is an officer giving me a ticket for an infraction (letâs say speeding) I committed a month ago.
Once I publish a model I forget about it. Do you think I go and check each and every one of them each morning to see if they still match the current rules?
The system should set clear expectations for a validation period. If you post something that contravenes the rules, they have 1 month, 3 months, a year whatever amount of time to validate the model or profile and penalize you or not. After that period, you can sleep well, knowing that the model was accepted. If by any chance they would change the rules after that, they are free to remove the profile, but no point deduction should be performed.
Not really. The violation is ongoing, not a one-time violation that happened months ago. It is an ongoing violation that just got caught now. This is not that unusal.
So if i were to kill 10 people over the course of a decade do you think i should only be punished for the last one just because nobody caught me at the time the crimes were committed?
This isnât murder lol, or a crime. Itâs not detrimental in any way to them. A simple takedown and warning would be enough, then they could assess additional point penalties for repeat offences.
MakerWorld doesnât just take models from the site, so it must have been reported by someone. Thatâs the basis for the discussion. Now, theoretically, there are two possibilities:
Someone dislikes you and has gone through all your old stuff.
The original designer noticed this and was not happy with it retrospectively.
Does it make a difference? No, not really. Why am I listing this? There are many reasons why something might only be reported after months or even years. You read about it time and time again here. I would even say that it has happened to all of us at some point; it is only human to overlook something.
Just as you have to understand designers, not everyone constantly checks whether they agree with a remix, print profile or anything else. Some donât check at all, some check monthly and some check almost daily.
Thereâs a lot of text, but ultimately, you have to live with it. The best way to avoid this is to design your own stuff, avoid remixes and print profiles, and take the plunge at some point. Trust me, youâll probably only do that once before moving on to designing your own stuff. Only then will you have full control.
Which totally goes against the community spirit of this entire 3D printing scene.
Then they should implement an approval process. That way, something like this can be prevented from the outset. Punishing people months or years later by essentially âburningâ their account cannot be a solution if, as a manufacturer, I want the community to use my platform.
True, but this site has something others donât - tangible rewards that get bigger if you manipulate the site, abuse the rules, spam junk models, etc. Without enforcement, this place would be a pirate bay in no time.
Sadly too many are willing to forego taking time to learn the craft and design their own unique and quality models. They are why we canât have the altruistic nirvana of share and share alike, actual improvements to models instead of point vampires who used to pile on print profile after print profile on popular models, etc.
Since this site is an outlier in that regard itâs not really appropriate to try to treat it simply like a hobbyist website. Itâs absolutely a business for Bambu and they are trying to make it more formally a business for us as well. Itâs why the crowdfunding, exclusives, Makerâs Supply tie-ins, etc.
Itâs obvious at least to me that Bambuâs/MWâs approach has generated a lot of traffic, sold a lot of printers, and sold lots of supplies. Itâs their house and their rules too. I just wish they policed their own house better.
Communication could definitely be better. Things with disruptive impacts get announced after they are implemented, seemingly with little thought to just how disruptive they might be.
The photo file drill was a good example. Some have lots of models posted. To get a mandatory directive to certify all photos as real or not without any deadlines stated but with threats of pulling them and penalties is extremely harsh and was a fire drill few likely enjoyed.
It would be much better if these kinds of actions were clearly spelled out and announced ahead of time. They need to post deadlines, rules, and consequences so people can see what is coming. They can make whatever rules they want and we can abide or not, move on or not. But communication to date has been horrible on this stuff. No doubt about that.
Make retroactive changes all they want but they need to be announced ahead of time and people given time to move into compliance. Changes that result in models pulled, points taken, etc, all need to be posted with time limits to comply.
There will probably be more of this as various entities pressure Bambu for legal compliance. Bambu looks like they may be trying to âgo legitâ as this aspect of their business grows. But who knows. A lot seems fairly arbitrary but with an overall direction.
