Attribution of Building Techniques

[ludov]

This question is triggered by a remark of Erik Leppen in the thread of his (excellent) TC7 entry. He wrote:

I used the same steering linkage as D3K did in his Midi-scale pneumatic crane truck (with his permission), but I reinforced it, sacrificing some ground clearance.

Especially the part "with his permission" got my attention.

I think it is common-sense courteous to mention the source of inspiration, especially when you used an exact copy of some technique or assembly. For example, I used a nearly one-on-one copy of a gearbox Sariel posted on his website in a MOC and made sure to attribute this to him when I posted it here.

However, I hadn't occurred to me to ask for his permission to do this, as Erik Leppen has done for reusing the concept of D3K's steering setup. I have seen it before though, people asking in a MOC-thread something along the lines of "That's great, do you mind if I reuse this in a MOC?", but personally I don't expect people to ask me if they can reuse something (assuming that I would build something worth of reusing ).

What are your opinion's on this? Should you ask permission? Is it sufficient to mention the source?

The question is asked in the context of MOCs, but I guess there's a whole different side to the topic when you consider reusing building techniques in MOCs of which you intend to sell the instructions. In that context you have to consider the grey and murky border between copying and inspiration...

[Kiwi_Builder]

Yeah I reckon that it's fine to just mention the original creator if you don't intend to make a profit from instructions for example. When it comes to paid instructions then it depends on how large/important the reused part is in the MOC, if it's an integral part of the MOC then I think you need to ask permission but otherwise it's fine. Most people will say yes anyway because we're a good, sharing community

[TheItalianBrick]

I think we tend to mythify those "famouse" ones and pretend they are the only ones! I have 25 years of experience in building Trucks and stuff but never shared anything online as I didn't use internet too much!

When you name it "Sariel's gerabox" or "D3K steering" and so on....have you ever thought that there are other people in this world that had the same idea, althought they are not on EB neither have a youtube channel with 100000 views??

Personally, I don't think we should ask (I mean one can copy someone else stuff for his own use at home, without posting here and there). But if you do post it, then to mention it would be really nice!

Also you can "copy" a stering linkage, that doesn't mean you are done with your vehicle.....it's only a small part of it....

[D3K]

If someone uses a solution I came up with to good effect, then that just makes me happy. I don't claim any ownership of a given assembly of bricks, and for all I know someone (probably) have made this particular solution before me. It has happened before that I have come up with a nifty solution to a problem, and then been told afterwards that someone else already did it, which just goes to prove that the idea in question may have had some merit!

Erik even improved upon my design, so his solution is something I plan to use on a future MOC I have in mind

As for the "with his permission," I don't really concider it necessary to ask for permission to use a solution that is openly shown to anyone interested, as the intention (at least my intention) by showing it is to say something like "hey, I made a nice working contraption here, check it out (and try it yourself!)".

Erik actually asking is of course a nice gesture, but not really necessary. When showing off a new MOC, giving credit as to where and from whom you got the idea, is even nicer

But again; I don't claim ownership at all, and I don't think anyone else should either

[Meatman]

I think if someone is building a model and making instructions for free or to sell that uses someone elses ideas, then giving props to the person whose work was copied should at least be given out of common courtesy.

[Askan]

Normally I think it sounds a little too much to ask for permission, but in the case where you use someone else's solution in a competition I think it is a really nice gesture.

[Erik Leppen]

I probably wouldn't have asked if it wasn't for a competition. I think that changes the "rules" a bit. 'Cause, what if I might win? In this case I figured it would be better if D3K knew before I would come up with the entry. He might have been not amused to find his idea in a competition entry. Even if it's only a small part, but he (or she?) might have found it to be an essential part of his MOC.

Paid instructions is not an area I really care about. But competitions, where honour and reputation can be earned, is something I find important. So I tend to tread a bit more softly there :)

[aol000xw]

All these threads directly or indirectly related to Intellectual Property and Lego don't cease to amaze me. Authorship, permission, citation... all concepts related to IP, which is itself designed to keep control and grant profits.

And it is amusing how since -by now- there is not clear law or rule to apply, all kind of opinions sparkled with cursives, quotations, similes , etc. surface, in an effort to convey a personal vision of an apparently -but not really- very complicated subject.

The very moment that IP concepts or law are invoked, it is either a matter of ego or profits.

I don't feel any sympathy for ego worries because I see Lego as a toy, for fun and learning. Hence I wonder why people care so much about what others do when it is just a matter of enjoying it. But ego is a messy subject and when two people argue about it three opinions arise. So nothing surprises me.

If it is for profits it is just like any business. It is not about time, effort or compensation, it is about running a business by choice and following the law and paying your taxes.

Personally I want Lego free of laws, rules or limits even if that hurts a few egos or makes hard to make a profit.

[Meatman]

I was primarily talking about someone using instructions for someone elses model, tweaking it, and then claiming it as their own. I just don't think that is right regardless if Lego is just a fun toy or not.

[Askan]

Personally I want Lego free of laws, rules or limits even if that hurts a few egos or makes hard to make a profit.

I understand your thinking and that would maybe be nice, but without possibility to make a profit, there would be no Lego at all :) And without big egos caring about what others think and do, there would probably not be all these amazing creations we can enjoy and learn from. Getting cred and feedback from a community can be a strong driving force. This is what you see in the academic world where people work their a$$ off and fame among a few caring people is the reward, not money.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Askan

[aol000xw]

I was primarily talking about someone using instructions for someone elses model, tweaking it, and then claiming it as their own. I just don't think that is right regardless if Lego is just a fun toy or not.

Just ask yourself for a second not if it is wrong, but what is the harm done?

Yours is a nice example of ethics. But while it may be obvious to you what is right and wrong it may be not the same to everyone, and even if everyone agrees, your very own example isn't a black or white.

¿Tweaking? Where does the inspiring end and where does the copying begin? Furthermore you imply that there is intent,to deceive. I would not accuse so happily, who is to be judging that?

It becomes a burden and for what purpose? Here is where the answer to my first question is relevant.

In the end people know enough to tell a copycat or not enough to know or care. I myself appreciate a creation for what it is, not for who signed it.

I understand your thinking and that would maybe be nice, but without possibility to make a profit, there would be no Lego at all :)

I don't think Lego needs third parties making a profit to survive. Care to clarify?

And without big egos caring about what others think and do, there would probably not be all these amazing creations we can enjoy and learn from. Getting cred and feedback from a community can be a strong driving force. This is what you see in the academic world where people work their a$$ off and fame among a few caring people is the reward, not money.

The academic world is a good example... of why it is wrong. There is a big controversy about how it works for exactly the very own reasons you mention. People stop sharing or caring of anything except fame and/or money, and that hurts knowledge and progress.

[Askan]

I don't think Lego needs third parties making a profit to survive. Care to clarify?

The academic world is a good example... of why it is wrong. There is a big controversy about how it works for exactly the very own reasons you mention. People stop sharing or caring of anything except fame and/or money, and that hurts knowledge and progress.

I mean both third party, like all distributors, toy stories, bricklink stores, second hand market, ebay, etc, but also TLG. Its big business. It is also reasonable that a MOC builder who shares his or her creation want some money for their building instructions.

Yes I agree, the downside is that people do not share until they have everything completed, like in thesis or patents. But the driving force is still recognition more than money. If we go back to the Lego world I prefer MOC builders who are proud of their work and really want to show it by making movies, BI, etc for recognition from a community. If it was just for play at home, nobody would share.

That is my opinion anyway.

[Andy D]

I believe **Everything** in LEGO is built on some previous work. Someone connected 2 bricks together in a novel configuration, someone else saw this an then connected a third brick in a novel configuration, pretty soon someone puts all this together and has a novel subassembly of some sort. Then someone else sees a new way to use this subassembly in a new way.

By sharing, we are all helping each other AND expanding the ART of LEGO. I agree that it is considerate to mention in a thread that you plan to use such and such subassembly in a new MOC, and it is also considerate (but not required, we all forget where we got some ideas) to mention that use in the introduction of your MOC.

This is one of the great things about communities, not just the sharing and " look what I did" but the furthering of the art. As for making money off your creations, unless you just added gingerbread to a construction and call it your own well... we all use many pieces of other's MOCs and official LEGO sets this is how the art is advanced and what I like about these LEGO communities.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

Edited August 17, 2015 by Andy D

[ludov]

I probably wouldn't have asked if it wasn't for a competition.

That is a good argument that I hadn't considered. It is indeed courteous to ask, but I think we all agree on that.

The very moment that IP concepts or law are invoked, it is either a matter of ego or profits.

I'm not going to deny that I have an ego It hasn't happened to me, but I think I would be a bit annoyed if someone made a 1-on-1 copy of something that I've been working on for days and claim it as their own. Would it keep me awake at night? No, probably not. It's, as far as I'm concerned, not a topic of IP, but of courteousness and/or ethics.

I believe **Everything** in LEGO is built on some previous work. Someone connected 2 bricks together in a novel configuration, someone else saw this an then connected a third brick in a novel configuration, pretty soon someone puts all this together and has a novel subassembly of some sort. Then someone else sees a new way to use this subassembly in a new way.

By sharing, we are all helping each other AND expanding the ART of LEGO. I agree that it is considerate to mention in a thread that you plan to use such and such subassembly in a new MOC, and it is also considerate (but not required, we all forget where we got some ideas) to mention that use in the introduction of your MOC.

This is one of the great things about communities, not just the sharing and " look what I did" but the furthering of the art. As for making money off your creations, unless you just added gingerbread to a construction and call it your own well... we all use many pieces of other's MOCs and official LEGO sets this is how the art is advanced and what I like about these LEGO communities.

Absolutely agreed

[aol000xw]

Lego itself, its very first plastic bricks, are a copy of a patented design! They did not license it, just stole it.

I wonder why they do not give proper attribution when selling those very profitable Lego boxes

I see a model in the web, the designer is called JohnDoeBricks. I like something about it and want to use it. So following your ethics, I ask for permission to use it, and publish my own model giving proper attribution to JohnDoeBricks .

Except I may be wrong, Unless I know every of the published MOCs since the creation of Lego Technic there is no way I can be sure JohnDoeBricks is the original designer and not a copycat, And I can't really know what mechanisms he copied.

Even if I knew every single model, how do I know he did not steal an idea from someone that simply does not publish.

Reputation.

Sadly that is how it works now, a very one sided system. If a builder with a well established reputation steals the model of a newcomer, no one will believe the newcomer for example.

This has happened many times in academy and literally world, there is no reason for it not happening in Lego . Specially if there is some value to it.

Example

Not that long ago someone published a gray Land Rover. It is not a surprise that it was similar to Sheepo's, as both were stealing a Land Rover design -the irony always makes me smile-.

Some technics in the body where close, although not the same. but someone was fast and in my opinion rude calling him a copycat, specially because the technics were really different.

And that is the problem with all this IP crap. I don't care at all about Sheepo's reputation or profits -no offense-, what I care of is of someone being stigmatized for no real reason.

It has been said already, 99% of what is done is based on previous works and I don't see a 10 page document relating the tree of attribution on every new MOC,

¿Sounds ridiculous? It is because it is, but for a system to work it must work the same for everything and everyone, not just for the big things or famous members of a community

Conclusion

This isn't a perfect world and ethics is relative, scarce, and attribution does not benefit everyone but just a few, hence for me it is a useless burden.

I personally don't care if people give attribution as long as they respect those who don't and don't become zealots protecting their Idols.

[Meatman]

It is easy to say that you don't care based on your situation, but you might care if you were the actual victim of having your ideas being used or stolen and then passed off by someone else as they collect the credit.

[Andy D]

To add to my above post, in case it was not clear. I DO NOT believe anyone should just copy someone's MOC, and claim it for their own, no one should even use a large percentage of someone else's MOC and claim it for their own.

Just using some novel subassembly (preferably with credit) should be OK.

If it is for sale or for use in a contest, I believe folks should be more concerned with what they use, when in doubt... Invent your own.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

[Phoxtane]

I think there are some that are taking this topic way too seriously.

I don't think there's any need to ask to borrow a mechanism or idea from someone else's model to make something in yours work. Especially in the limited parts selection of Technic, sometimes there's only one or two ways to do something in the exact manner that you need it to do.

If you're participating in a contest, where in many cases the goal is to test your own ingenuity, it's most likely the most prudent option to ask whoever you're borrowing a mechanism from if it's okay to use that mechanism, given the situation you're using it in. Again, there may be only one or two ways to make the mechanism you're after work in the manner you want.

Nobody said I have to mention who I'm borrowing ideas from, but I do it anyway, because it's polite and sharing techniques, etc., is how this whole community works, perhaps even more so in this particular sub-forum, given the nature of the stuff that's built here. Besides, if you don't, other people will notice and do it for you ("Hey, isn't this thing from that person's thing?"), and people tend to judge accordingly. I certainly do...

This isn't a perfect world and ethics is relative, scarce, and attribution does not benefit everyone but just a few, hence for me it is a useless burden.

That's a /fine/ attitude to have.

If anything, attribution should be encouraged; at the very least, then we'd end up with more people being exposed to a larger group of builders, and in turn more ideas and tools, and thus the overall experience for everyone is improved. It totally benefits anyone involved.

So yeah, at least be polite - everyone else is doing it and it makes everyone feel better about the whole thing.

I should point out that especially within certain Internet communities *cough*Tumblr*cough*, not posting sources when you 'share' a piece of art or a picture or whatever WILL result in a wave of hate and abuse. APPARENTLY, we don't take Lego seriously enough.

Sadly that is how it works now, a very one sided system. If a builder with a well established reputation steals the model of a newcomer, no one will believe the newcomer for example.

I disagree. Based on what I've seen play out multiple times in various other places on the internet, if someone like Sariel, for example, 'borrowed' a design wholesale from some no-name builder, I can guarantee that someone would notice and subsequently call him out on it (this has not actually happened). A lesson learned rather quickly by some is that the Internet tends to remember these events and will hold it against the person in question for pretty much forever. (Nobody's forgiven George Lucas for Star Wars I, II, or III yet, at least.)

[ludov]

I see a model in the web, the designer is called JohnDoeBricks. I like something about it and want to use it. So following your ethics, I ask for permission to use it, and publish my own model giving proper attribution to JohnDoeBricks .

Except I may be wrong, Unless I know every of the published MOCs since the creation of Lego Technic there is no way I can be sure JohnDoeBricks is the original designer and not a copycat, And I can't really know what mechanisms he copied.

Even if I knew every single model, how do I know he did not steal an idea from someone that simply does not publish.

I didn't say you have to ask for permission. (I don't now if "you" in the sentence was addressed directly to me or not though.) My ethics are that it is nice to give credit where it is due. For example (the same one I used before), I use a gearbox design that I saw on Sariel's website, and I post photo's of my MOC here, in a community I know Sariel is a member of. So I give credit to him, that my gearbox was from his website. In fact, Sariel, on his website, acknowledges Erik Leppen for coming up with the gear configuration, which is not trivial to come up with. Also nice of him to do so.

Is it necessary? No. Is there someone somewhere who has come up with the same gearbox independently? Very likely. But that doesn't change where I got my inspiration from.

And that is the problem with all this IP crap. I don't care at all about Sheepo's reputation or profits -no offense-, what I care of is of someone being stigmatized for no real reason.

It has been said already, 99% of what is done is based on previous works and I don't see a 10 page document relating the tree of attribution on every new MOC,

¿Sounds ridiculous? It is because it is, but for a system to work it must work the same for everything and everyone, not just for the big things or famous members of a community

Conclusion

This isn't a perfect world and ethics is relative, scarce, and attribution does not benefit everyone but just a few, hence for me it is a useless burden.

I personally don't care if people give attribution as long as they respect those who don't and don't become zealots protecting their Idols.

As I said: I don't think it is necessary that you have to give credit for every combinations of pins and gears and whatnots. As others have pointed out, we build on the common knowledge and skills of the greater community. The whole idea of sharing our works is to further the community with new techniques and ideas. But that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that you shouldn't give some credit if someone comes up a something really new and you get inspired by it. If for nothing else, wouldn't you feel flattered if people tell you they got inspired by your work? Everybody has an ego.

...[a lot of insightful things]...

If anything, attribution should be encouraged; at the very least, then we'd end up with more people being exposed to a larger group of builders, and in turn more ideas and tools, and thus the overall experience for everyone is improved. It totally benefits anyone involved

...[more insightful things]...

+1

[aol000xw]

Everything you say guys sounds pretty reasonable, plain common sense if you will, because that is what we have been taught.

The concepts of property and reputation get entrenched in our neurons pretty soon and firmly, and that makes very very hard to think differently,

I just suggest that for a second try to think out of the box:

Of a community where people shares without expecting profit or recognition.

Of a community where every bit of knowledge is put in a common pool for everyone to benefit, and learn.

Of a community where recognition or authorship don't matter because is the community and not the individual what matters.

It is pure utopia, our very nature is to seek power and control, the catholic church enjoyed that quite a bit by controlling literacy for some centuries.

I work in the IP world and that has changed my way of thinking over the years. I choose to not contribute to that way of thinking.

[Lipko]

This thread is too lofty for my mind, but I do think/believe that even though the part inventory, topics-to-be-MOCed and the physical constrains of the system limit the number of possible "good" solutions to problems, we still don't see perfect solutions and I believe that it's close to impossible that two persons can come up with the same exact solution and implementation.

What I'm trying to say that in the very most of the cases, if two implementations are the same, that one of them was copied.

With that said, I think that common sense is enough, no obligations are really needed apart from the obvious reselling issues of MOCs and instructions. It's nice to attribute the direct source of inspiration or actual implementation (attributing the whole idea chain is obviously not necessary).

Captain Obvious spoke.

[Erik Leppen]

Lots of good replies here. It's still very much a "feeling" subject where everyone feels a bit different.

in the very most of the cases, if two implementations are the same, that one of them was copied.

'd like to add a remark here.

Many things I use I have copied (in one way or another) from sets. Do I credit the original set designers for that? No, I don't. Why? I don't really know, but probably because those people are payed to do designs and spread them. So I consider techniques in sets to be "open source" and free to use without credit. Implementations in MOCs however, I feel are someone's creative input into the community, which I think deserves some credit. Set designers have had their credits from the company (in the form of $$$).

It's nice to attribute the direct source of inspiration or actual implementation (attributing the whole idea chain is obviously not necessary).

Exactly what I'm thinking.

If I get inspiration from X, it's not my concern where X gets his inspiration - I got it from X, so I thank X for bringing it to my attention.

[metulskie8]

Hello.

For my part I have the impression:

- Specifies one who inspired a, no one is interested!

- Not called the source, the screaming is large ...

[Boxerlego]

Everyday we deal with this problem.

Being inspired is way more beneficial.

LEGO is about Inspiration and building.

When I made a tutorial and showed how to connect two 9v battery boxes together for 18v. The moderators didn't even give me attribution in the most notable topics list because they don't feel comfortable with the idea that LEGO should be able to do this.

So tell me why attribution of building techniques is so important when the Moderators could care less about making sure you receive attribution.

We live in a world full of supremacist and if you not part of the elite club then no attribution for you.

[metulskie8]

Everyday we deal with this problem.

Being inspired is way more beneficial.

LEGO is about Inspiration and building.

When I made a tutorial and showed how to connect two 9v battery boxes together for 18v. The moderators didn't even give me attribution in the most notable topics list because they don't feel comfortable with the idea that LEGO should be able to do this.

So tell me why attribution of building techniques is so important when the Moderators could care less about making sure you receive attribution.

We live in a world full of supremacist and if you not part of the elite club then no attribution for you.

Yes it is

Edited August 23, 2015 by metulskie8