New software by BrickLink - Stud.io

[62Bricks]

1 hour ago, Superkalle said:

I stand corrected.

However, to me this more raises the question why MOCPages would need such a wide statement as "perpetual, irrevocable and sub-licensable". It feels like they have more or less copy-pasted standard statements. Brickshelf and Brothers-brick seems to be more "down-to-earth" terms that are more aligned to the LEGO fan target audience? (best to end with a question mark this time )

They probably did just copy the terms from another site. On the other hand, there is a "delete" link at the top of every one of your MOCpages, so you can remove your content from public view at least.

But that might not actually remove your images from their server immediately. If someone saved a direct link to one of your images, for example, they might still be able to load it until it is actually deleted from the server (if it ever is).

The sub-licensable part may come into play when the site shares your content on another site that has similar terms. For example, I upload a photo to MOCpages and then MOCpages puts the image in a Facebook or Twitter post. I'm giving MOCpages the right to sublicense the image to Facebook or Twitter.

I think the aim of all the major LEGO fan sites is to share, not to steal. All of these sites also have language in the terms on what you can do if someone else uploads your content without your permission - takes your image from Flickr, for example, and uploads it to their own MOCpage. As the copyright holder, you can request that MOCpages take it down and they will.

[SylvainLS]

Yes, you explained why it’s there. I understand that and already said the same thing a couple weeks ago on Stud.io’s forum.

What I say is that:

1. It’s overreaching CYA legalese mumbo-jumbo that, as you also said, is (about) the same everywhere.
2. People don’t read it or think that it does not apply to them.

and that:

1. Because it’s everywhere doesn’t mean it’s not overreaching.
2. Because a lot of people don’t care or understand doesn’t mean that sites can write anything they want or that other people shouldn’t care.

Maybe they only write that so that they can show your MOCs, maybe they will never sell boxes with your MOCs or other horrendous things. But then, why is it not written that they only need the rights to show pictures of and instructions for you MOCs? Brickshelf does write what the purpose is. Flickr is about pictures only. BrickLink is about selling LEGO, that’s “the operation of the Site.”

[dr_spock]

2 hours ago, SylvainLS said:

What happens: Everybody copies everybody’s ToS. Nobody reads them.

My opinion: “everybody does it” and “nobody cares” aren’t excuses.

 

People who care will read them.  If the terms aren't agreeable then they won't use the site or sign the contract.  You can try to negotiate with the site's owners different terms or ask for changes that are more acceptable to you.  Then it's up to the site's owners to decide whether they would want sign a specific agreement with you on your terms or tell you no.  If they say no, then you can go elsewhere or live with their terms if you really must use their service.

On the other hand, if you're running a business and blindly copying someone else's TOS to use as your own without understanding them fully, then you could be putting yourself and your business at risk.

 

 

[SylvainLS]

Oh, and BL already added 7.1 after the question of the over-broadness was raised. Proof that the terms were overreaching CYA to start with. 

[62Bricks]

Just now, SylvainLS said:

Oh, and BL already added 7.1 after the question of the over-broadness was raised. Proof that the terms were overreaching CYA to start with. 

Or it's proof that Bricklink is attentive to the concerns of its users and made a change in its terms in response to those concerns. Depends on your point of view, I guess. If all a person wants to do is find new ways to complain about Bricklink, it doesn't matter what they do - it's all bad.

In my opinion Bricklink was never out to steal anyone's MOCs. They responded to that concern by making the terms more clear that they're really not out to steal anyone's MOCs. I believe that concern stemmed from people who are unaware of this type of language on most other similar sites and who saw it only for the first time when it was brought to their attention with Stud.io. Then the fire was flamed by people who are upset about other things - that BL released Stud.io before auto-checkout, for example.

[SylvainLS]

8 minutes ago, 62Bricks said:

Or it's proof that Bricklink is attentive to the concerns of its users and made a change in its terms in response to those concerns. Depends on your point of view, I guess. […]

There’s no point of view here: it’s legalese, if it needs to be restricted, that means it was too broad. That’s just fact and deduction.

That they changed the ToS quickly (and had (already? I don’t know the exact timeline) said as much to Huw/Brickset (reported on their review)) is to be put to their credit but that doesn’t change the fact it was needed.

 

[62Bricks]

Just now, SylvainLS said:

There’s no point of view here: it’s legalese, if it needs to be restricted, that means it was too broad. That’s just fact and deduction.

That they changed the ToS quickly (and had (already? I don’t know the exact timeline) said as much to Huw/Brickset (reported on their review)) is to be put to their credit but that doesn’t change the fact it was needed.

 

"Too broad" is an opinion based on a point of view. It was not as broad as some other similar sites. It was broader than others. It is still more broad than some similar sites. And not as broad as others. If a person's point of view is that Bricklink is out to steal intellectual property, that affects where on the spectrum they think its terms ought to fall. Some apparently truly believe the intention was to trick people into uploading their MOCs so Bricklink could somehow take ownership of them and profit.

[Superkalle]

In the end, it's like dr_spock said: We all have a choice, and if we don't like the terms, we don't have to use the service.

We've talked a lot about terms on other sites like Flickr, MOCPages etc. But I guess the case we're talking about is different to when sharing a picture of a MOC or so, because with a digital 3D model you have the complete structure of the model, not only a picture and so the "value" of the file is much higher. I'd like to compare sharing of digital LEGO models more to sites like Turbosquid, Sketchup's 3DWarehouse or even Shapeways, then to Flickr and MOCPages.

Anyway, following up on 62Bricks last post: I'm wondering, what happens if someone takes an official LEGO set and uploads it to the public gallery. Is the design not originally the property of TLG? Or if you upload someone else's MOC with small adjustments (we've seen it happen in the past). What is it really that a user gives BL a licence for? Is it the LEGO-model itself (the design), or is the work that went into re-creating the digital model? Furthermore, if you upload a model to the public gallery, are you also at the same time giving BrickLink a future right to commercialize those models, for example using them in contests, or using them to enhance other parts of the site (like connecting official set models to the BL set database)? What does the "license" given to BrickLink really cover?

 

[SylvainLS]

15 minutes ago, 62Bricks said:

"Too broad" is an opinion based on a point of view. […]

Oh come on. If something is cut, it’s because it’s too long. Because if it’s the right size or too short, it does not need to be cut. It was cut, hence it needed to be cut, hence it was too long. End of story.

That it is or not still too broad is an opinion, but not the fact that it was already restricted.

And as I didn’t answer to the end of your previous post, I won’t answer to the rest of this one either. My name is not “some.” If you want to accuse me of something or put words in my mouth (like you already did before in this very thread), have the courage to say so.

[62Bricks]

15 minutes ago, Superkalle said:

In the end, it's like dr_spock said: We all have a choice, and if we don't like the terms, we don't have to use the service.

We've talked a lot about terms on other sites like Flickr, MOCPages etc. But I guess the case we're talking about is different to when sharing a picture of a MOC or so, because with a digital 3D model you have the complete structure of the model, not only a picture and so the "value" of the file is much higher. I'd like to compare sharing of digital LEGO models more to sites like Turbosquid, Sketchup's 3DWarehouse or even Shapeways, then to Flickr and MOCPages.

Anyway, following up on 62Bricks last post: I'm wondering, what happens if someone takes an official LEGO set and uploads it to the public gallery. Is the design not originally the property of TLG? Or if you upload someone else's MOC with small adjustments (we've seen it happen in the past). What is it really that a user gives BL a licence for? Is it the LEGO-model itself (the design), or is the work that went into re-creating the digital model? Furthermore, if you upload a model to the public gallery, are you also at the same time giving BrickLink a future right to commercialize those models, for example using them in contests, or using them to enhance other parts of the site (like connecting official set models to the BL set database)? What does the "license" given to BrickLink really cover?

 

There is language in the BL terms that would cover when someone uploads something that might be covered by someone else's copyright - the copyright holder would be able to make a formal request that it be taken down. I don't know if LEGO would actually do that, since they are famously relaxed about letting fans share their intellectual property so long as they follow the "fair play" guidelines.

 

3 minutes ago, SylvainLS said:

Oh come on. If something is cut, it’s because it’s too long. Because if it’s the right size or too short, it does not need to be cut. It was cut, hence it needed to be cut, hence it was too long. End of story.

That it is or not still too broad is an opinion, but not the fact that it was already restricted.

And as I didn’t answer to the end of your previous post, I won’t answer to the rest of this one either. My name is not “some.” If you want to accuse me of something or put words in my mouth (like you already did before in this very thread), have the courage to say so.

You have it wrong. I used "some" specifically so as not to accuse you of holding that opinion. I was thinking of one specific post in the BL forums in particular, made by someone else.

Take it easy and please don't assume that everything you disagree with is a personal attack on you.

[SylvainLS]

8 minutes ago, 62Bricks said:

You have it wrong. I used "some" specifically so as not to accuse you of holding that opinion. I was thinking of one specific post in the BL forums in particular, made by someone else.

Take it easy and please don't assume that everything you disagree with is a personal attack on you.

Okay. Maybe I should go to bed now (midnight here) but “some say this” in each of your answers to my posts and our latest bout made me to assume that.

Anyway, I already stated my opinion on ToS in general: overreaching CYA. I quitted using a lot of proprietary softwares because of their leonine licences a long time ago (and also because they suck ).

As for BL’s uploading/publishing ToS, I don’t think they are after our MOCs, but I do think, like Superkalle just pointed, that some points are still unclear (mainly due to the nature of MOCs).

Legalese is about making things cristal clear. (Or it should be. I know some (patents…) are more about obfuscating things in order to cover more and hide what should be there.)

[62Bricks]

I should maybe not quote people in my posts. It's a habit I have to avoid cross-talk, but it can seem confrontational.

 

[BennyT19]

Hi Guys I have been using stud.io for a couple of weeks and noted a couple of points:

Firstly, someone above mentioned about repeating a piece - you can hit the 'C' key for CLONE and the part you already have selected will reappear on the screen.

Secondly, this has inbuilt rendering - so no more Bluerender importing files etc - you can do it WITHIN the program, hence the POVRAY files in the install pack.

For all those who are experiencing crashes this seems very erratic, it happened early on in the BETA release but seems to have settled quite a bit in recent weeks.  REMEMBER this is a BETA release still.

For anyone else that is continuing to use it, I am looking at the STEPS for building.  Why would you include this if it can't do BUILD INSTRUCTIONS?  I can't seem to find anything that suggests it will, but if LDD has it and we can do it with BLUEPRINT, surely BL can get stud.io to do it also.  This is one feature I am really keen on seeing included.

@Citizen if you are speaking to your friend on the dev team can you ask about build steps and instructions?

Best part compared to LDD this actually alerts you if you have built using a colour not available as a BL piece and gives you a cost of the whole model via BL interface - awesome.

If this is only Beta, there is very promising times ahead.

Ben

 

[Minique85]

On 21/12/2016 at 10:55 AM, BennyT19 said:

For anyone else that is continuing to use it, I am looking at the STEPS for building.  Why would you include this if it can't do BUILD INSTRUCTIONS?  I can't seem to find anything that suggests it will, but if LDD has it and we can do it with BLUEPRINT, surely BL can get stud.io to do it also.  This is one feature I am really keen on seeing included.

@Citizen if you are speaking to your friend on the dev team can you ask about build steps and instructions?

Best part compared to LDD this actually alerts you if you have built using a colour not available as a BL piece and gives you a cost of the whole model via BL interface - awesome.

If this is only Beta, there is very promising times ahead.

Ben

 

Hi Ben,

The instruction generator is actually online. You just need to upload the model to your private baseplate (which then stays under your copyright)  and you can then get the instructions from there via your Web browser, under My Baseplate.  It works well actually.

My only complain which I posted on their Stud.io forum is the inability to try it prior to upload, through the software. The handling of sub-model is well done as well, easy to go in and out groups.

Overall, I like the software,  still a couple of issues, especially for Technic Build, but a lot of neat functions (tab key for part browser, color filter, used colors in model, favourite parts, Bricklink integration)

I agree, very promising! 

[Ulrik Hansen]

For some time I couldn't get the beta to work in my os x Yosemite instalation but a week ago it finally did show the parts that was missing on startup. I've been using both LDD, LDraw (Bricksmith) and Mecabricks prior to Stud.oi, and also Autodesk Maya.

When I started using Stud.io I was soon missing a pan fuction when set origin does not make the right render focus. I finally found out that as you orbit around your build, you can pan by holding down the shift-key :D Edit: After finding the Stud/Manual/keyboard-shortcuts.html, fumbling time is pretty much over

I think it looks promissing. I love the render part as I never really got started on that with my builds. I'll be back with more observations.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ulrik Hansen

[Gnac]

7 hours ago, Ulrik Hansen said:

shit-key :D

Clean your keyboard!

[dmarkng]

Has anyone had issues importing LDD files into stud.io?

Incomplete files/parts list etc.

[Foxw]

Yeah, ran into that a couple times, both going both ways. both with ldd and lcad suite.

I have ran into a few odd parts it happens with (mostly old versions), and seems theres a few discrpency's in the database of bricklink's model db. 1 appeared to be misslabled, and remember NOT every part has been modeled yet, part of being in beta.

 

 

but honestly, now I must admit, Studio has become my primary building engine for digital design.  between snap/collision, the new ability to NOT be able to pic color/part combo's that don't exist & having rendering built in.  I just don't use other options as much, hell Leocad, my old go to has been relegated to "finiky" stuff (where I need part placement precision)

[Paperballpark]

I'm trying to generate instructions for a model I've recreated in stud.io, and whilst I can see them online, I can't find a way to create a PDF for instructions. Does anyone know a way? I tried to export as LDraw and import into MLCad, but it's separated out all the 'sub models', and I have no idea where the instruction steps that I created in stud.io have gone. Help!

[roland]

Sidenote:  Stud.io files are LDraw, just zipped with some extra stuff.

To make decent instructions you need to edit the LDraw files and add instructions on how to generate the pages.

Most people use LPub or LPub3D for this.

[Ivan_M]

I have made several PDF instructions out of the stud.io in LPub3D. The process is not really different from making the model completely in LDCad or MLCad. I suggest to set viewing angles in studio, it will save you a lot of time. Move the camera to desired position, right click on step, select set angle, hit OK and CLICK ON CAMERA BUTTON on right side at step selection (you have to select "Show by step" to see the camera button). After you are done export the file to LDraw. Open LPub3D and import the file. Take in mind that the LPub annotations (callouts, merging etc.) are not loaded in studio and opeining/saving such file in studio will remove it. So make sure you are 100% done in studio or alternatively use LDCad to make changes. MLCad will not work as the groups are not correctly exported (studio doesn't support .mpd export yet, but it is worked on).

[Paperballpark]

I managed to figure out how to use LPub3D yesterday, and changed the camera angles in that (although sometimes it doesn't do what you tell it to). I can't see any way to add call-outs, put multiple steps on one page, add arrows or things like that though.

[Philo]

Keyword with LPub/LPub3D is: "right-click". There is a lot of things that can be done by right clicking on model, on page background, on part list and so on. For example right click on a submodel background allows to "convert as callout". Right click on model step then "add next step" for multi-step. Not the most user friendly, but works when you're used to (and right click in the right place!). AFAIK arrows must be done externally (callout arrows are created automatically)

[Paperballpark]

Aha brilliant! :) Thank you!

Edited January 29, 2018 by Paperballpark

[icm]

Thread bump to ask if anyone has had this problem:

This evening I copied my Stud.io folder and build files to a new flash drive and foolishly deleted the old one before testing the new one.  Now the program will open my build files, but none of the parts are visible in the build window and they all show as corrupted in the parts list.  Parts images aren't showing up in the bottom tray either, and when I pull a part out of the bottom tray to place it in the new build it doesn't show up in the build window and it shows as corrupted in the parts list.  I've reinstalled the program twice, once directly from a fresh download of the installer, but it's still not working.  Has anyone else had this problem?  How can it be resolved?  Thanks for your help.

EDIT: Got Stud.io reinstalled on the original flash drive and it seems to work.  It still doesn't work on the new flash drive, but the build files copied back from the new flash drive to the old one open correctly on the original drive.

Edited June 14, 2018 by icm