Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

[Stash2Sixx]

Yes, mods are aware. I saw this thread early this morning before I went to sleep. I have messaged Tenderlock privately and am following along.

[Daedalus304]

1 hour ago, Tenderlok said:

@Hod Carrier, I fully agree with your statement.

Apparently to address this issue, Jimbricked now has this note on his channel:

So if a MOC designer signs the mentioned agreement form, this should be ok.
However, for me there's still the question why anyone should pay for files which their designers had made available for free...

If these "Instructions" are on the same level of quality as every other MOC Poacher out there who steals other people's work, it's probably literally just the LXF file.

On top of the ridiculousness of charging money for somebody else's free work, I can't even begin agree that simply redistributing another person's free LXF file constitutes enough work to skim off a full 50% of whatever is being charged. If the MOC Poacher actually had the skill to put time and effort into making REAL instructions I could see an argument for wanting a portion of the proceeds, but even THAT should only be done with explicit permission.
 

3 hours ago, Capparezza said:

I am utterly distraught that it has even come so far. Why do people think that just because something is available for free on the Internet they can do with it what they want or even sell it? This is something that goes completely against the conventions I have been brought up with. Is this new generation really that far apart from common sense and decency? Or is it just that the public in general is shifting more and more to monetary beliefs instead of virtues?

Even if I don't have anything up in the "Intarwebz" that someone could grab and press a Shilling out of, this leaves me very worried about the future...

*shakes head*

It's not a generational thing. Thieves and scoundrels of all sort have been doing this since long before any modern country existed. As long as there are hard-working, talented people to make things, there are poachers and opportunists there to swipe the credit and take the money on their behalf.


I remember not too long ago some guy came here posting one of Zephyr's fantastic EMD units as his own, also selling it and literally dozens of other poached MOCs from members of EB as well as Brickshelf and MOC Pages. My recommendation is that if you see your own, or somebody else's, work being blatantly poached and monetized, bring it to the attention of the mods/admins.

[JEB314 (James)]

 

I thought it best to tell you all that Jimbricked has infact removed all his content.

 

Do people think this was the right decision?

[CarrollFilms]

1 hour ago, Tenderlok said:

However, for me there's still the question why anyone should pay for files which their designers had made available for free...

There are always people willing to pay money for something they can't create. As stated earlier,"Most people that watch those videos aren't familiar with the lego sites we use frequently." 

They don't know that these MOC's are made for free online

[Carefree_Dude]

1 hour ago, Jimbricked said:

That's the problem

People act like I sell millions of copies. 

I get lucky if I get an email a week, and if that, someone buys and goes through with it.

Thanks Goodness, most of them are for ones I have permission for from M7Rock, as his Polar Express seems to sell well.

That's why I have barely said anything on the Instruction topic as I have no real basis to go off of there.

-Jim

JIMBRICKED

Is selling any number of copies of stolen work acceptable? Don't the people who made those creations deserve the money you made off of them? 

[MAB]

Just now, JEB314 (James) said:

I thought it best to tell you all that Jimbricked has infact removed all his content.

Do people think this was the right decision?

1

I guess it depends on how long the content has gone for and whether it resurfaces again. 

It seems his fans believed the work published was his ... "Don't Delete Jimbricked. You are one of the best Lego LDD designers" (comment from the community tab under the poll about closing it).

 

Although it turns out he wasn't doing it for himself ... "My point in this TOPIC isn't to promote my Channel, but rather an Opportunity for YOU!"

 

[BrickMusher]

11 minutes ago, JEB314 (James) said:

Do people think this was the right decision?

No, not really. Think there must be a better way. At least 13019 subscribers that like LEGO like we do, dont know about the "why"..... he only disappears...

Don´t think thats a good day for Lego-Fans. Neither in one nor another way

[Daedalus304]

23 minutes ago, JEB314 (James) said:

 

I thought it best to tell you all that Jimbricked has infact removed all his content.

*image removed*

Do people think this was the right decision?

Sure. The majority of the content was stolen work. If he feels like his own work is strong enough and valuable enough to gain that many subscribers on his own merit he should be able to build it back up again - but with how muddy the waters get in things like this, detaching from the shady poaching that's defined the channel is probably best for everybody in the long run.

Youtube fans aren't going to lose interest in the subject matter just because one video maker has left, they'll just go find someone else who offers comparable content - and with any luck they'll find someone who runs their channel with integrity and doesn't poach. I think that's also best for everybody.

8 minutes ago, MAB said:

I guess it depends on how long the content has gone for and whether it resurfaces again. 

It seems his fans believed the work published was his ... "Don't Delete Jimbricked. You are one of the best Lego LDD designers" (comment from the community tab under the poll about closing it).

 

Although it turns out he wasn't doing it for himself ... "My point in this TOPIC isn't to promote my Channel, but rather an Opportunity for YOU!"

 

Interesting there was an open call for LXF files to be submitted and no mention of "By the way, I'm going to try to sell your work and keep all the proceeds for myself".

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Daedalus304
Forgot a punctuation

[JEB314 (James)]

9 minutes ago, MAB said:

I guess it depends on how long the content has gone for and whether it resurfaces again. 

It seems his fans believed the work published was his ... "Don't Delete Jimbricked. You are one of the best Lego LDD designers" (comment from the community tab under the poll about closing it).

Very true, I think that needs explaining to his fans...

7 minutes ago, BrickMusher said:

At least 13019 subscribers that like LEGO like we do, dont know about the "why"..... he only disappears...

The "why" part is the problem now and how to address it.

I feel his subscribers deserve to know.

It saddens me it has come to this... As you say:

7 minutes ago, BrickMusher said:

Don´t think thats a good day for Lego-Fans. Neither in one nor another way

A proper discussion on do's and don't do's of using others Mocs and LDD files is called for, in my opinion...

[Carefree_Dude]

If he were to keep doing a youtube channel, this is what he SHOULD do. 

-Find MOC he wants to showcase 
-Contact MOC Creator 
-Create video about Moc, including an interview with MOC creator. 
-In comments, link to MOCers website
-In comments, include link where you can buy files from MOC creator directly 
-If MOC creator doesn't have the above, offer service to sell, where MOC creator gets 80% profit. 


EDIT: This is the firs ttime I've ever seen the "Hot!" Tag in the train tech forum

Edited May 24, 2018 by Goldenmasamune

[Sven J]

Dear fellow AFOLs,

Looking at the way things are going, I’d like to pause for a moment to add my two cents…

When I started this thread yesterday, I didn’t imagine in my wildest dreams that it would make such massive waves. In fact, I consider it an absolute pity that it generates much more views and replies than any train MOC of the last weeks – @Goldenmasamune, I saw that "Hot!"-tag too, and it's a shame that it requires this kind of topic to appear. But it shows how deeply people, including me, are affected by misuse of their intellectual property.
Of course, the harsh feedback was to a large extent due to @Jimbricked behaving quite foolishly in the beginning of the whole affair (forgive me my explicit words), not really accepting advice.
But after he has taken down this channel (which, in my opinion, was an over-reaction – other ones already wrote how he could have handled the situation), for me, personally, the matter is solved. I think/hope Jim has learned his lesson, and surely it was a bitter one.

As I said, that’s just my personal point of view. I can understand everyone who’s still annoyed by the misuse of his MOC files.

However, we must find a way to get on.
So I strongly support @BrickMusher's proposal to start a how-to-tutorial regarding the publishing and sharing of MOC files. It could be a chance that our time won’t have to be wasted for unpleasant discussions like this one in the future, but instead can be used for our great common hobby.
This is a magnificent community, and it would be a shame to lose that amicable spirit I've experienced here for the last two-and-a-half years.

As I said, just my two cents…

Kind regards,
Sven

 

[Hod Carrier]

Was the content voluntarily pulled or has YouTube yanked the whole lot?

I think it’s a bit of a shame. If Jim really does have content that is either his own or that he has permission showcase then I think he should be allowed to do so. 

[Carefree_Dude]

Just now, Hod Carrier said:

Was the content voluntarily pulled or has YouTube yanked the whole lot?

I think it’s a bit of a shame. If Jim really does have content that is either his own or that he has permission showcase then I think he should be allowed to do so. 

I feel he yanked it down himself. There is a poll now on whether he should delete his channel. 

I have my own suspicions on what he is feeling right now, but I will keep those to myself. 

[Bartosz]

45 minutes ago, Goldenmasamune said:

-Create video about Moc, including an interview with MOC creator. 

And imagine just how much more interesting (and informative for YT viewers who don't follow/don't know other sites) such video would be!

[Phoxtane]

My thoughts:

- Unless stated otherwise, assume that any resources posted online regarding a MOC are not eligible for sale EXCEPT by explicit, individual permission given by the creator (the creator, of course, may sell these resources themselves if they so choose).

- Any store that sells MOC instructions, etc., should have a public posting of the permissions granted to them for sale of these resources by the creators. That is, I should be able to quickly and easily find on the store's website/pages a statement from the original creator that grants that particular storefront permission to sell these items.

- Bad actors don't play by the rules, so if you see something, report it to the content creator. However, a supposed 'bad actor' may actually have permission (but neglected to state so), so double-check before throwing the aprocryphal books around.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Phoxtane

[Carefree_Dude]

1 minute ago, Bartosz said:

And imagine just how much more interesting (and informative for YT viewers who don't follow/don't know other sites) such video would be!

Mocs are nice to look at. But I'd love to hear what gave builders inspiration or how they thought to include certain techniques. 

[JEB314 (James)]

9 minutes ago, Hod Carrier said:

Was the content voluntarily pulled or has YouTube yanked the whole lot?

The content was voluntarily pulled, but from the way things were headed, Youtube weren't too many strikes off doing so anyway...

[Hod Carrier]

Then I think that was a bit of an overreaction. He need not have taken down everything, only the stuff he didn’t have permission to use.

[MAB]

14 minutes ago, Hod Carrier said:

Then I think that was a bit of an overreaction. He need not have taken down everything, only the stuff he didn’t have permission to use.

I imagine he wouldn't have much left to show and the result would have been very similar. It looks like he is playing the victim to his fans.

37 minutes ago, Tenderlok said:

So I strongly support @BrickMusher's proposal to start a how-to-tutorial regarding the publishing and sharing of MOC files. It could be a chance that our time won’t have to be wasted for unpleasant discussions like this one in the future, but instead can be used for our great common hobby.
This is a magnificent community, and it would be a shame to lose that amicable spirit I've experienced here for the last two-and-a-half years.

 

The sad thing is, nothing will change. Even if everyone here signs up to a code of conduct, others can still steal their work and ignore the code. His channel shows people don't really care where it comes from. That is the real problem, and he was just feeding them. He might disappear but someone else will take his place. I made the conscious decision when I joined not to post my work here (I do publish on flickr under another name) and never to share LDD files, simply because something similar happened to me in the past, where someone took my files and sold them on ebay as their own work. (And what hurt even more was that he was selling them for just £1.99. Was that all I was worth! :-) )

 

[Carefree_Dude]

I'm a photographer, and it's fairly easy and cheap to register copyright with your images; If you do so, it's really easy to sue people who steal your images for damages. 

I wonder if it would be reasonable to try and do the same with these MOCs? 

[MAB]

2 minutes ago, Goldenmasamune said:

I'm a photographer, and it's fairly easy and cheap to register copyright with your images; If you do so, it's really easy to sue people who steal your images for damages. 

I wonder if it would be reasonable to try and do the same with these MOCs? 

It is very hard to sue someone in another country, and this is an international problem. Also the definition of a MOC is tough. If you change a couple of pieces, is it still the original MOC? If you change 5% or 10%? And what if you take inspiration from someone else's MOC or use a technique that someone else has used? Can they then sue you for copying their technique for a key part of your MOC?

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by MAB

[JEB314 (James)]

29 minutes ago, Hod Carrier said:

Then I think that was a bit of an overreaction. He need not have taken down everything, only the stuff he didn’t have permission to use.

From what I know, it was in the balance as to whether his channel was going to survive the strikes for copyright infringement, etc...

[Carefree_Dude]

Did he actually have any original content on his channel? 

[JEB314 (James)]

1 minute ago, Goldenmasamune said:

Did he actually have any original content on his channel? 

Yes he did, but a relatively small proportion of his channel's uploads.

[MAB]

6 minutes ago, Goldenmasamune said:

Did he actually have any original content on his channel? 

He did post four videos of trains earlier here, saying he had designed them. Although there was four, they were really only two builds, with two recolours. He also had a lot of tutorials, they may have been his videos, but I had seen a lot of the techniques or ideas before.

Edited May 24, 2018 by MAB