MOC Ford GT40 in Yellow

[Superkalle]

Here is Firas original:

http://www.mocpages.com/image_zoom.php?mocid=113937&id=/user_images/12960/12404273413

EDIT:

Seems like skyliner has removed his pics in this topic, but DLuders has a post about them here: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45885

And the E-bay ad: http://cgi.ebay.com/Lego-Model-Team-Technic-Racer-Creator-Custom-Ford-GT40-/190434734641?pt=UK_Construction_Toys_Kits&hash=item2c56cb7231

[Ralph_S]

I have no immediate explanation for what happened with the accounts of Ralph and Firas. From what I can tell during the time of the weird mix-up both seemed to use the same Jordan IP-address . Let's hope it was a one-time glitch.

I am posting from the Netherlands. I'll tell you more about what happened. This topic came up in a discussion there on the LUGNuts group.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/lugnuts/discuss/72157624732260793/

In that discussion Bricksonwheels linked to this thread. When I clicked the link, I was all of a sudden logged in as bricksonwheels. I logged out and logged in as myself. It's possible that Firas clicked on the link after I did and was all of a sudden logged in as me, without realising it.

Let's hope that this remains an incident. I'm not at all happy about somebody being able to write stuff in my name.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Firas Abu-Jaber]

I have no immediate explanation for what happened with the accounts of Ralph and Firas. From what I can tell during the time of the weird mix-up both seemed to use the same Jordan IP-address . Let's hope it was a one-time glitch.

But that aside, I'd first like to see some pictures of the original model from Firas to compare with this one side by side. Do we have a link? If it is really a 99% copy then I for sure having a moral issue with Skyliner not crediting Firas when posting "his" version and I will consider removing this thread (incl. pictures) from Eurobricks as clearly Firas didn't give his permission for making the copy.

http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/113937

[Plastic Nurak]

Skyliner's copy is still on sale .

[Bricksonwheels]

Lol... Ralph.. that must have felt great being me for a minute

[Ralph_S]

Lol... Ralph.. that must have felt great being me for a minute

It was mainly confusing. All of a sudden I had this massive urge to fondle chrome

Cheers,

Ralph

[Ralph_S]

Lol... Ralph.. that must have felt great being me for a minute

It was mainly confusing. All of a sudden I had this massive urge to fondle chrome

Cheers,

Ralph

[TechnicJuan]

I am not sure if there is anything legal that can really be done. There was a discussion on this very subject a few weeks ago Here and then right after that This Popped up on Ebay. I suppose that selling other people's designs is the new In thing to do.

Edited September 2, 2010 by TechnicJuan

[skyliner]

This has clearly caused both concern and debate.

Firstly on copyright and intellectual property. I can't see how this has broken any laws in the UK or abroard.

Positives:

This allows other lego enthusiasts the opportunity to own or build a great MOC design. It is frustrating when lego issue models without instructions. This is the same for MOC's.

Negatives:

The original designers artistic rights may of been morally infringed and i guess permission should of be sought before offering for sale.

To this end i will consider ending the auction, after i have contacted the bidders to explain the situation.

Edited September 2, 2010 by skyliner

[Bricksonwheels]

Well thats a mature reaction. Good work solving that.

[mikey]

i've followed this little saga with quite a bit of interest, and i would agree that whilst the MOC is a blatant copy, it is unreasonable that Skyliner has felt that he had to withdraw his auction due to pressure from members here (or anywhere else within the Lego On-line Community).

firstly as i understand this situation, Skyliner 'reverse engineered' this MOC from pictures posted on a picture sharing site. as such this issue should be viewed in a completely different light from say, buying instructions from the original creator to produce the piece, or attempting to resell freely available instructions or any other information (collectable MiniFig Bar Codes being a good example).

i would say that this 'reverse engineering' which occurred from analyzing a set of pictures, gives Skyliner the right to do anything he wants with his MOC.

why?

because the internal structure needed to be worked out by Skyliner. maybe the internal structure might be similar to the MOC he copied, if so then does Firas 'own the rights' to that hidden structure (even though Skyliner came to the same solution independently)?

or maybe the internal structure that Skyliner came up with is different to the original model?, so that just the exterior can be classified as a copy?

given that an attempt is being made to reproduce a real world artifact with a finite number of Lego elements, maybe the exterior could be expected to show strong similarities to the MOC posted by Firas?

not withstanding, a reference to the work of Firas was stated from the beginning, and also in the Auction Description. so therefor any interested purchaser could attempt to 'reverse engineer' the model themselves if they choose and had the correct analytical skills to do so. Firas could have tried his luck selling his MOC on an auction site at any time, but he chose not to. why should someone who has put the work in (i.e.: not bought instructions), feel pressured to withdraw their auction?

[TechnicJuan]

Very Good Points mikey. Like I said before, I don't think that there is anything that Firas can legally do about it. This whole thing is more of a good Lego ethics and morale issue than anything else. I think the biggest mistake that was made was the fact that skyliner actually came on here and announced what he was actually doing. Obviously he was looking for advertisement for his auction, but it seemed to backfire on him.

[shimon]

i've followed this little saga with quite a bit of interest, and i would agree that whilst the MOC is a blatant copy, it is unreasonable that Skyliner has felt that he had to withdraw his auction due to pressure from members here (or anywhere else within the Lego On-line Community).

firstly as i understand this situation, Skyliner 'reverse engineered' this MOC from pictures posted on a picture sharing site. as such this issue should be viewed in a completely different light from say, buying instructions from the original creator to produce the piece, or attempting to resell freely available instructions or any other information (collectable MiniFig Bar Codes being a good example).

i would say that this 'reverse engineering' which occurred from analyzing a set of pictures, gives Skyliner the right to do anything he wants with his MOC.

why?

because the internal structure needed to be worked out by Skyliner. maybe the internal structure might be similar to the MOC he copied, if so then does Firas 'own the rights' to that hidden structure (even though Skyliner came to the same solution independently)?

or maybe the internal structure that Skyliner came up with is different to the original model?, so that just the exterior can be classified as a copy?

given that an attempt is being made to reproduce a real world artifact with a finite number of Lego elements, maybe the exterior could be expected to show strong similarities to the MOC posted by Firas?

not withstanding, a reference to the work of Firas was stated from the beginning, and also in the Auction Description. so therefor any interested purchaser could attempt to 'reverse engineer' the model themselves if they choose and had the correct analytical skills to do so. Firas could have tried his luck selling his MOC on an auction site at any time, but he chose not to. why should someone who has put the work in (i.e.: not bought instructions), feel pressured to withdraw their auction?

You are absolutely right.

The same situation could have happen to me with Arvo's VW Beetle i made in LDD (file is in LDD forum if anyone want it), and i was willing to build\sell it

But then, the first thing that came to my mind even before gathering the pictures of the massive model was that i really felt OK even to credit Arvo brothers with some profit, though e-mailing was a must do for me.

It really takes an effort to redesign a model from the outside and definitely from the inside,

and by that i think the designer should be proud that his work had achieved such level that people are actually copying the design.

Its rather weird how a simple mail could make such trouble and misunderstanding.

[Ralph_S]

There's a big grey area when it comes to plagiarising somebody else's work. When does it stop being a copy and start being an original. I don't think there's an easy line you can draw.

Legally, Firas might not have a leg to stand on. However, there can be a difference between what is legal and what is actually the right thing to do. I think skyliner did the right thing by withdrawing it.

Ralph

[J0n4th4n D3rk53n]

I don't know what's going on, but yesterday I was all of a sudden logged in as a different user when clicking on a link leading to EB. Apparently Firas has had the same thing happen to him and has inadvertently written a few posts under my name.

I haven't posted anything in this thread, but since I've been dragged into this I'll say this.

Firas' model is awesome and you've done a decent job reverse engineering it. Kudos for that.

However, I don't think it's right to sell a model that is this closely based on a model built by somebody else without at least contacting the original builder first, irrespective of whether or not it technically legal.

Ralph

Same with me, I was logged in as you yesterday. When I posted a response the user was Ralph S. And when I tried editing it it went glitchy, thats why there is a response from you that says n: .

[Ralph_S]

Same with me, I was logged in as you yesterday. When I posted a response the user was Ralph S. And when I tried editing it it went glitchy, thats why there is a response from you that says n: .

Ah! I wondered where that came from. Anyway, I don't think it's just my account either. I could have posted as bricksonwheels yesterday. The reason why I didn't was that I saw the name bricksonwheels and his avatar in the top right-hand corner of my screen. EB, there's a problem

Cheers,

Ralph

[mikey]

i think 'plagiarism' is a very strong word when used in the context of this issue. i would define plagiarism as the attribution of another person's work as you own. in this context, not only was the original author referenced, but potentially a degree of original design was used to 'reverse engineer' the internal structure and sculpture of the model. so in essence i would argue that a referenced 'inspiration' was used to create an 'independent' piece.

this is interesting to me purely for the ethical arguments which have been raised right from the start, as it is quite clear that Firas has no legal standpoint. for sure 'ethic' is very much a 'grey area'. which would lead me to ask why this MOC has raised these questions. is it the fact that Skyliner 'reverse engineered' freely available images and attempted to take artistic credit for the creation? or is it the fact that potentially he had the opportunity to make a profit from this type of project?

Edited September 2, 2010 by mikey

[Ralph_S]

i think 'plagiarism' is a very strong word when used in the context of this issue. i would define plagiarism as the attribution of another person's work as you own. in this context, not only was the original author referenced, but potentially a degree of original design was used to 'reverse engineer' the internal structure and sculpture of the model. so in essence i would argue that a referenced 'inspiration' was used to create an 'independent' piece.

this is interesting to me purely for the ethical arguments which have been raised right from the start, as it is quite clear that Firas has no legal standpoint. for sure 'ethic' is very much a 'grey area'. which would lead me to ask why this MOC has raised these questions. is it the fact that Skyliner 'reverse engineered' freely available images and attempted to take artistic credit for the creation? or is it the fact that potentially he had the opportunity to make a profit from this type of project?

I won't be on-line much in the next few days, so this is the last thing I'll add.

Perhaps plagiarism is the wrong word, indeed, although if Firas name wasn't mentioned on Ebay, it might still apply. If Firas' name was there, he could potentially object to somebody else using his name for commercial purposes without his permission.

Anyway, copyright infringement is probably the better term. You are very adamant that Firas couldn't make a legal claim, but I have my doubts. We're obviously not talking about huge amounts of money here and actually taking legal steps would not be worth the hassle, but that's not the issue. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding (of US copyright law) is that whether what Skyliner did was legal doesn't depend on him mentioning Firas' model as the inspiration; it depends on whether or not 'reverse engineering' a design (from copyrighted pictures BTW) could be seen as an unauthorized copy/ derivative work / original work and that depends on whether it is sufficiently different from the original. If it is anything other than original work, there is a problem. Looking at both cars (and the presentation) and by Skyliner's own admission, I'd say it's a derivative, however. Posting that on-line is fine, certainly if attributed. That would probably be covered by 'fair use', but I'm pretty sure that selling the model is a no-no.

In principle, Ford might also have something to say about this.

Legalistic stuff aside, the least skyliner could have done is drop Firas a line. I'd be pissed off too if somebody were to do this with one of my models.

Cheers,

Ralph

Edited September 2, 2010 by Ralph_S

[TechnicJuan]

Here is another prime example. Paul Boratko posts instructions online at his site for his custom model and then someone from another country builds it and paints it yellow and sells it. What can really be done other than bad mouth the person who did it? This individual obviously only had intentions of making a profit off of someone else's work, but it looks like they failed at only 186 Euro or $238 dollars.

[Firas Abu-Jaber]

i've followed this little saga with quite a bit of interest, and i would agree that whilst the MOC is a blatant copy, it is unreasonable that Skyliner has felt that he had to withdraw his auction due to pressure from members here (or anywhere else within the Lego On-line Community).

firstly as i understand this situation, Skyliner 'reverse engineered' this MOC from pictures posted on a picture sharing site. as such this issue should be viewed in a completely different light from say, buying instructions from the original creator to produce the piece, or attempting to resell freely available instructions or any other information (collectable MiniFig Bar Codes being a good example).

i would say that this 'reverse engineering' which occurred from analyzing a set of pictures, gives Skyliner the right to do anything he wants with his MOC.

why?

because the internal structure needed to be worked out by Skyliner. maybe the internal structure might be similar to the MOC he copied, if so then does Firas 'own the rights' to that hidden structure (even though Skyliner came to the same solution independently)?

or maybe the internal structure that Skyliner came up with is different to the original model?, so that just the exterior can be classified as a copy?

given that an attempt is being made to reproduce a real world artifact with a finite number of Lego elements, maybe the exterior could be expected to show strong similarities to the MOC posted by Firas?

not withstanding, a reference to the work of Firas was stated from the beginning, and also in the Auction Description. so therefor any interested purchaser could attempt to 'reverse engineer' the model themselves if they choose and had the correct analytical skills to do so. Firas could have tried his luck selling his MOC on an auction site at any time, but he chose not to. why should someone who has put the work in (i.e.: not bought instructions), feel pressured to withdraw their auction?

First of all I can guarantee you that copying someone else's work (what ever the work is, even with a piece of paper) and try to making money out of it isn't a nice thing and a bit odd, every one of us is proud of his work, and see it unique in a lot of ways, while I'm not too deep into legal issues, on the other hand I can assure you that this situation has pissed me off a lot.

Now about internal structure of this model, and my other models in general; I usually post a lot of detailed photos of my MOCs, like these:

http://mocpages.com/image_zoom.php?mocid=113937&id=/user_images/12960/12404246631

http://mocpages.com/image_zoom.php?mocid=113937&id=/user_images/12960/12404264133

http://mocpages.com/image_zoom.php?mocid=113937&id=/user_images/12960/12404259972

These for sure show you how I made the internal structure, or to be exact most of it, which makes it easy to copy also the internal design, and I think some plates and a couple of Technic bricks are not too hard to build the hidden chassis with.

I don't think who copied someone's MOC should feel pressured or pissed off to not selling the model, if it was his own work why not; but, (legally or not) it's not nice to do that specially without permission from the original designer.

It's simply, not the right thing to do.

Best regards,

Firas

You are absolutely right.

The same situation could have happen to me with Arvo's VW Beetle i made in LDD (file is in LDD forum if anyone want it), and i was willing to build\sell it

But then, the first thing that came to my mind even before gathering the pictures of the massive model was that i really felt OK even to credit Arvo brothers with some profit, though e-mailing was a must do for me.

It really takes an effort to redesign a model from the outside and definitely from the inside,

and by that i think the designer should be proud that his work had achieved such level that people are actually copying the design.

Its rather weird how a simple mail could make such trouble and misunderstanding.

"i think the designer should be proud that his work had achieved such level that people are actually copying the design"

That's right in two cases:

1- Get the permission first to build a copy from the designer and give him credit.

2- Don't try to make money out of it.

BR,

Firas

[DLuders]

Bidding has ended on this item: http://cgi.ebay.com/Lego-Model-Team-Technic-Racer-Creator-Custom-Ford-GT40-/190434734641?pt=UK_Construction_Toys_Kits&hash=item2c56cb7231 . It was the decent thing to do to cancel the auction.