What should I consider as a remix? do I have to use someone's files to be considered as a remix? or even if I get the idea from them I would need to include it as a remix?
The biggest trouble is, that remix button dont work well and setting something as a remix of something is impossible (TV never finds the thing by name or number). Thus I have a remix that is not marked as remix and I kept all the credits in comments to honor the license and previous authors.
BTW, in the end most things here are remixes of something, but most dont even care to give credits. In the end everything is remix of basic tutorial of the cad we started with :0
On the other hand the story of unix and bsd tells that once you completely rework the original to state where there is not a single original line, you have your own clone, that is completely free according to author law.
So maybe just use your sense of fairness and give credit whre the original work has real impact on your product.
Do you mean to say that BSD remixed Unix, over and over, inside and out, until it was no longer Unix?
Thats exactly what happened and a few courts have said so in 1990s
And at the same time BSD is Unix, functionaly at that time over 95% same userland behaviour, the same counted for libraries. Ground was the codebase. It was all the big story of state market regulations changing a few times, damaging much on the way. But Berkeley university found out they have already rewritten their own Unix during the years of free access to sources, missing about thousand lines to boot up. And they won their ownership over that and released the incomplete thing as BSD 4.4 Lite which gave basis for all current BSDs including MacOS X without need for anyone to pay any fees to anyone.
Thus from the authorship perpective, once you overwrite everything, it should be yours as long as your access to sources was legal. Giving credit is more a moral gesture at that point. If this was not true, it would not be possible to develop anything as everything was already programmed five times over. Most of the big legal battles between giants are based on:
1] Patents, once you describe wheel in fancy enough way its yours as long as judge does not say otherwise
2] Legal acces to codebase with purprose of making a rewrite. Many gians were cooperating with each other in so many ways on so many projects that most of them have big deposits of foreign code they may use only for very restricted area of things. But they tend to look there for hints and when hints become copy/paste, lawyers rejoice.
All of the free licenses are ment to teach others (and that incorporate rewrite) and I am not aware of a single situation when that would not apply - otherwise current BSD would be much much poorer in device support as many drivers get there by rewrite from linux while linux drivers were written under various NDAs that BSD developers generaly deny to accept.
I'd be glad for a voice of real lawyer experinced in this area, maybe I get it all wrong...
Hard work should pay off.. And a society shouldn't discourage people from being creative and inventive.
The Thingiverse society is very honest. Maybe one in a thousand people would deliberately rip someone off. To me, tagging it a "Remix" is nothing but a courtesy, used when you want someone to know you appreciate their work.
Yeah, folks who really create something understand the value. Thats how it works and as long as we tend to group, we can live a dream.
But in my area of lego things, there are numerous repetitive uploads of the very same bricks from the very same source done by zounds of different users and so many have no info or comment at all. Thus I guess its around one in ten if not less. I only wait until pieces from my beam generator become daily work of them like the brick generator is now. The tool is new and incomplete, but I found nothing even comparable, my sources are much less potent and their products emerge on thingiverse without credits all the time.
There are two ways of solving this. Simply ignore that and only defends ones authorship when somebody esle starts earning money on it (coolest are requests for payment adressed to original author). Other is to close everything, make signs inside the models for everz customer and play the state ruled game laws and copyrights. I love the first way and whenever I see somebody unable to create anything and copying, I can only laugh...
I learned my lesson... I'll never again claim any of my projects are original.
One day I saw this thing: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2345201
I got ripped off! That thing is mine! https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2955155
But the date says I was a year too late.. Oops. Sorry about that.
There's millions of things on Thingiverse. Millions more out there in the wilderness. Who knows where ideas come from. We probably absorbed people's thoughts and ideas while we were in mamma's womb, and now claim them as our own.
"Who knows where ideas come from. We probably absorbed people's thoughts and ideas while we were in mamma's womb, and now claim them as our own."
"Who knows where ideas come from. We probably absorbed people's thoughts and ideas while we were in mamma's womb, and now claim them as our own."
Some, myself included, would call it the Collective Consciousness.
Carl Jung called it collective unconsciousness. That's probably closer to the truth. We are 90% comatose.. Unaware of many memories (they are revealed to us in the dream state, according to him), and I think unaware of many natural abilities too... Perhaps mind-reading and similar, things that an organized society would need to suppress.
I don't know the number of times I've been working on a problem with something I'm working on and I would wake up literally with the exact answer. The mind is an amazing thing.
And thats the way humanity grows. If the first moneky that jumped down the tree invented patent office, we would be climbing until today. Chinese understanding is that if you get copied, it means you are good. And humanity need to find some balance to this, currently western world is going to more and more strict rules and it eats wast resources. We simply need to calm our egos and accept that its natural to learn and try.
Most wise people understand the value of protecting people's ideas. You want to encourage creativity. If I know some wealthy person can just steal my idea, manufacture it, and I'll get no benefit, then I may not tell anyone about my anti-gravity device...
The US Constitution mentions patents... Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Yeah and go after that, for example mises institute has many texts around the subject. US constitution is great, declaration of independence even better, but after a bit over two centuries violated on every single paragraph and presidents, who made biggest leaps in that direction are the most favorite ones. Patents are more or less monopolies and nothing more, and in so many cases they work this way. Patents went from reasonably limited times to absurd levels. And for example Watt started earning on his steam machines after his patent ceased, not during the granted time. Prusa research is another example that shows patents are useless and slow the progress - imagine the world where all his improvevements are patented and heavy cashed. Would be Pusa making same profit? Maybe. Would I have my own printer in production now? Deffinitely not.
Yet free release of anything does not grant results - Lubeck vaccine is here for quite some time, nobody is willing to allow public testing and all states buy pattented vaccines from big companies no matter that most of them seem worse. And even without patents the story would be very same as too much money is in the game. Core point is, big players use patents for protection against flexible small new projects while small project benefits are very low - many buyouts were forced by threats of patent lawsuits. Thus patents only keep the old and rigid floating instead of letting it replaced.
But we went rather far from the original remix question :)
Yeah ok, I my agree to most of your points, but I want to ask a simple question here - why everyone is so much afraid to go and pay the license fees? It took more than 10 years that we mainstream DDR5 but the patents made by Siemens / Infineon / Qimonda were there since more than 10 years. In fact Siemens reduced itself to a patent mogul, Quimonda is living only on its patents ... for over 10 years already ...
This is what I consider the worst thing of the patent law. When someone transfer his income into IP / patents and then sit back and get royalties for decades basically doing nothing and paying no salaries. A patent dwarf, a money making machine. This I call cheating.
OK, and you can be certain that your invention uses only this and that patent to pay for? Thats the problem, there is now way finding out all relevant patents, reading all active ones would proly take a lifetime of few people. Thus many things are patentend many times over, many patents are so soft in definitions that they may apply 20 years after on very different technology and so on. So even those willing to pay all used patents to last penny have no way of finding who should they pay to and how much before they start developing. Some drop the development altogether, some get forced to sell their progress for low price. The countermeasure is openlicensing with some kind of GPL's return your work - that inhibits most of patents you can imagine based on the protected product and thus keeping its development open. If this counterpatent approach was hampering creativity, we would not have neither open software nor hardware.
...violated on every single paragraph .. So throw out the Constitution, and throw out the patent protection system, because people abuse them? Banks are robbed, but we don't blame the banking system.
Everything gets abused whenever possible, particularly when big money is involved. But the laws are being followed. If you don't like those results, petition your government representatives to change the law. They would love to hear your plan on how to improve the system.
I'm certain you agree that the basic idea is sound. Creativity must be protected.
Nope, keep the constituion, hold to the declaration of independence and fill the citizen duty to protect it. Return to what these documments mean. USA has the huge opportunity as you have something sane to return to. Most other countries have so weak constitutions that they are more or less pronouced dictatorships of masses. Last year proven that in so many cases, victims of repressions leaped far above the most tragic scenarios of covid victims, yet nobody stand in the court and Sweden is still blamed for not having the constitutionsl power to abuse its citizens when not in war. In Czech republic its 25% of population having new psychical troubles shortening life by 4 years on average against the most absurd frightening note of minister about 340 thousands covid deaths of people with average life expectancy of 4 years. Our government did half of the job WHO did in Bngladesh, so they still suck.
Banking system robs much much more than any robbery that could happen in physical world, the best way to rob a bank is to own one. This state is result of not keeping the US contitutional legal tender and printing papers instead. So yet again, return to constitution, dont accept it beeing torn to pieces. No, govenments are the very reason human right got trashed, they will not love to hear anything about the subject.
Sure the basic idea is fine, but that protection is here even without the patent system. Most inventions are too complicated to be just replicated from the end product - thus getting nonpublic knowhow means you need to rob. Current legislative means that patents cripple the creativity, slow down the progress. And you may not interpret a single line in constituion without minding the rest. The meaning of law is to protect weak against strong, to keep them balanced. Once the law gets upside down, it violates your constitution. But no matter that everyone has his own moralty and the worse the state is, the more personal moralty is importand and the harder to keep at the same moment. Thats why the slipery slope to dictatorship is always speeding up from tiny little steps.
I can share this opinion. Currently we are so restrictive and so much regulated that it works against our society. We shall ask our selfs what does make sense and where is the borderline, not that we have to walk on the edge all the time, but everyone must be aware where is this line. If you take in the extreme case - it is because on one side of the line your are violating the law and on the other side it make little sense :)
Asians have much healthier attitude.
It's called retro-plagiarism. jk
In my opinion: If it required downloading ANY of their files for ANY reason in order for you to make your design then it is a remix. If on the other hand you could glean all the information you needed just by LOOKING at their pictures online, then no, it’s not a remix. To go one step further, if you downloaded their files and then decided you could do the same thing only better. Even if you didn’t use their files, it’s probably a remix!
If you have to think about whether or not it is a remix, it is probably a remix.
So here is my conclusion, officially, it is if you used somebody's files. Rest is up for interpretation, moral and professional courtesy.
An original design, then of course it is a remix even if you don't use the files.
A common item, it would depends on what the person's design helped me do.
Looks like a hot subject based on the number of responses lol.
Thank you all.
The word has a proper definition. It originally comes from the music world. But of course it has spread out from there.
Here's one I like: "To modify (a work in any medium). "
If you use someone else's model and modify it or build on it, it's a remix. If you get an idea from something, technically, no, it's not a remix. In that case, though, me personally, I at least mention the original design and modeler in my description just as a professional / moral courtesy.
I second this. For example, in my design here (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1927302)
I used pin13's design files from (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1596701) and modified them for my specific uses. So I listed my design as a remix of pin13's work.
But one modification was inspired from another fan shroud design by cporto. So in the description I said so. What's interesting is that he improved the idea I borrowed from him in a remix of another's design.
One of the more interesting things to see is how designs get modified and improved through successive remixes. Miniature holders for painting are where I saw the process most clearly. I found this when I was going back to post makes of a design and when looking for the design I'd used, came across with earlier and later related designs. One person would design something and get it working well enough that they stopped developing it. Someone else comes along says 'This is great, but to work for me it needs to also do X." That person adds this feature and calls it a day. That can happen successively adding and adapting, sometimes producing branches of designs that end, others being carried forward. Sometimes someone else looking for a holder finds that and likes it but also likes how someone else made a holder and combines them. While there are important differences, the process was reminiscent of biological evolution.
I treat it just as I would copying from a book or song, et al.: If someone else made it, then they should be credited with it. For books/songs, that would require copyright and/or royalties; for Thingiverse, that means a remix. Even if your end result looks nothing like the original, you still used someone else's design as a springboard for yours.
I remember a couple of month ago, someone published something that was not original at all, some drawer made of filament spool or something like that. Because of the new Home Page last-30-days-popular it became trending very fast. This recent author doesn't even mention the OP as the author, if it was, of the idea. It may be that this recent thing was made end to end by the publisher, but I thing this kind of practice we need to avoid.
If we had a contest... "Find an original idea anywhere on Thingiverse, and win a prize!" .. nobody would win.
I don't know... I think I might have something original in my designs somewhere....
There's no entry fee. You have nothing to lose. Give it a shot...
Every single thing of mine is original, until you discover it isn't.
“There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.” -- Mark Twain (autobiography)
If you rearrange things so it suits you better, you remixed it.
As I'm sure you can already see, it's somewhat open to interpretation. My interpretation is similar to others by the look of it. Personally, if I use someone else's file in any way (including taking measurements from it) I would consider it a remix. If I'm making it from scratch, it's not a remix, even if I got the idea from something else, though I may or may not mention that it was "inspired" by a particular thing.
There are gray areas. If you take someone's STLs or other design files and modify them, that's clearly a remix. But I sometimes see something I like, but for some reason decide not to use that specific third-party STL as a starting point for a new design. For example, because I can easily re-implement the design in Fusion 360 and then can make changes more easily than manipulating an STL. In that case it depends. If I made minor modifications, I'd flag it as a remix. If I turned it into something substantially different, I'd acknowledge the inspiration for the idea in the description.
As you saw from the first 2 replies, it is going to be your decision :) Both have merit but if you see a card holder in a picture, are you not allowed to design one of your own without crediting the original author? It gets messy. I credit people if I used their idea and expanded on it but if I did not use their files I would probably not call it a remix.
Totally agreed. I want to add that I would credit the author of the "idea" if it was something particularly original, but I have not examples of my own, most of my remix are directly made from other's files. I remember wanting to do this : https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3565827 but optimised for my printer. I made the file from scratch but never printed. If I publish that file, I think I will publish it as a remix, because the idea is pretty original.
I tend to agree to that interpretation. In most cases I consider a remix if I use the files or I make a new part which fits existing design. If the idea is new and even if it is using existing files I consider it my IP. The IP essentially is the idea not the physical item, file, etc.
only if you use the design files and change them. ideas are yours, this is a new design not a remix.
I take it the other way around. I've posted remixes of objects even if I didn't get any source file as a starting point, but only the idea.