Protecting MOC instruction designers. Crowdfunding.

[Mylenium]

11 hours ago, zux said:

Isn't profiting (selling MOC instructions) based on someone else's popularity (insert any car brand model) considered a theft too?

Just mentioning a brand name doesn't constitute a legal abuse and re-creating a design for limited (personal) use using a different medium is in the strictest sense seen as creating "art" in most legal systems. The rest is up to the IP holders and how far they tolerate these uses.

Mylenium

9 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

That's why I'm trying to say: given you have the skills, if your prefered reward is income, then selling is the way to go, sure. But if your most desired reward is recognition, then selling may not be the best way.

Well said!

Mylenium

[zux]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

Just mentioning a brand name doesn't constitute a legal abuse and re-creating a design for limited (personal) use using a different medium is in the strictest sense seen as creating "art" in most legal systems. The rest is up to the IP holders and how far they tolerate these uses.

Correct, there are no troubles creating MOCs based on IP and using brand's name, when this is done for your leisure. However issue appears when you begin profiting by selling instructions for such MOC. 

There is a reason why selling instructions for a MOC based on IP is common thing - free advertisement. Built model of a well-known object is recognisable and does not require you to spend effort into making it popular. Out of first 100 most liked MOCs with Premium (paid) instructions on Rebrickable I've counted just 32 that are not based on IP. Pretty much self-explanatory. 

And I've explained this briefly before - Lepin use same approach as MOC designers:

1. MOC designer create a model based on IP and profit from it by selling instructions, unless IP owner has no trouble and get into legal actions

2. Lepin produce a MOC based on designer's model ("IP") and profit from it, unless MOC designer has no trouble and get into legal actions

Trouble starts here as Lepin is getting more profit than MOC designer and then this result in discussion like we have right now. I would suggest strongly to reconsider such business model. Take a look at Lucio Switch's models for good example.

Edited September 20, 2018 by zux
added URL & example with Lepin

[Pvdb]

My view is that I am quite flattered that my model was made into an official knockoff brand set, even though I am not particularly happy with the fact that the model ideas was used without any recognition or reward to me the designer - in effect stolen.

While I am a fan of Lego and would never dream of mixing it with an alternative brand, I accept that the alternative brands now exist and even seem to be growing.  As with many young companies, the methods employed by some of these alternative brands are not what many would call legal or morally correct, and in this particular market this is much more obvious. (a small start up tech company using cracked versions of software is much less obvious but similar principals)

In my view, from the perspective of MOC designers having their ideas stolen, Lepin could solve all of this by offering a small royalty and designer recognition.  Even though I might not approve of Lepin's current practices, if they are going to use my idea and I can't stop them, then the above would at least solve the issue between Me and Them.  Accepted they still have an issue with Lego parent company!!!!

 

 

 

[Bartybum]

@Pvdb I think there's a risk Lego will come after any designers getting paid by Lepin since they're arguably then associated with them and hence profiting off IP theft.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Bartybum

[MAB]

16 hours ago, rm8 said:

Question is how to help MOC builders (who provide quality MOCs and instructions that people want to buy) not to loose inspiration keep buildng and sharing.

 

2

It also depends on what the builder wants. One of the best ways to help builders not lose inspiration is to comment on their work. It doesn't have to involve money.

There is a whole spectrum here; some people expect financial reward, others don't. At one extreme there are MOC builders who do it because they enjoy building and showing their MOCs, at the other extreme there are people that create electronic instructions for money without even building the MOC in real life.

13 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

@Pvdb I think there's a risk Lego will come after any designers getting paid by Lepin since they're arguably then associated with them and hence profiting off IP theft.

Only if LEGO are the IP holder, which often isn't the case. Eg. If someone makes a Star Trek MOC that Lepin produces, it has nothing to do with LEGO.

By the way, some people are trying the crowd funding route right now. There is a NASA / Apollo Mission set on kickstarter right now. They are doing electronic instructions, paper instructions, or complete set with parts. They look a bit expensive to me but it will be interesting to see if they make their goal.

Seeing as they already have the instructions (as they have the digital model), I wonder why they set the price (of both the instructions and the threshold) so high. Setting a lower threshold would have almost guaranteed that they make it.

 

[Mylenium]

2 hours ago, zux said:

Correct, there are no troubles creating MOCs based on IP and using brand's name, when this is done for your leisure. However issue appears when you begin profiting by selling instructions for such MOC.

Yes/ No/ Perhaps/ Maybe/ Maybe never. There are no simple answers here. In legal terms the damage to the IP holder's rights would have to be "substantial" and then it's an open question whether this means actual financial damage, damage to their reputation, trespassing on their business relationships and so on. In fact spinning this just on replicating the design would many times be the weakest case, as other legal interpretations might come before that and be more appropriate. And then of course it becomes a matter of how a trademark, design or patent is actually protected and how the IP holder enforces his rights. As I said, this can hypothetically be discussed ad infinitum, but the truth is that you won't know how it turns out until you have a concrete case with relevant details that would allow to form an opinion.

Mylenium

1 hour ago, Pvdb said:

In my view, from the perspective of MOC designers having their ideas stolen, Lepin could solve all of this by offering a small royalty and designer recognition. Even though I might not approve of Lepin's current practices, if they are going to use my idea and I can't stop them, then the above would at least solve the issue between Me and Them.

You could sue them, but of course your chances in a Chinese court a close to non-existant. If LEGO can't make it stick, what are the chances? Otherwise I don't see much you can do. The crux of it is that by promoting your MOCs you may actually be weakening your case by releasing too much info unwittingly and then they can claim they merely "got inspired" and rebuilt the model with minor modifications from scratch. We all know that's not how things really are, but that's how they're gonna spin it, no doubt.

Mylenium

[Pvdb]

Taking into account a few of the later comments - I had heard that Lepin did have a deal with one particular MOC builder, whether its true or not I am not sure.

When I build a MOC and it comes out well, then the furthest I would have gone in the past would be to present it, and perhaps create a digital file for myself to preserve the ideas and an image of the MOC into the future.

Creating instructions is a task that I would never consider doing for my own sake and I am sure this is the case for a few other MOC builders.  If the recent and brilliant Mclaren P1 had been presented without instructions I can garuntee that Brunojj would have been in-undated by requests to create them.  Thus comes a strong justification to charge for the time it takes to create the instructions, not forgetting the time it will take in future providing technical support when required. 

Of course there are a few builders who are creating models purely to sell instructions, this is fine in my opinion but is different motivation for building.than I have.

 

 

[Lucio Switch]

1 hour ago, Pvdb said:

When I build a MOC and it comes out well, then the furthest I would have gone in the past would be to present it, and perhaps create a digital file for myself to preserve the ideas and an image of the MOC into the future.

Creating instructions is a task that I would never consider doing for my own sake and I am sure this is the case for a few other MOC builders.  If the recent and brilliant Mclaren P1 had been presented without instructions I can garuntee that Brunojj would have been in-undated by requests to create them.  Thus comes a strong justification to charge for the time it takes to create the instructions, not forgetting the time it will take in future providing technical support when required. 

I can confirm what you say!

1 hour ago, Pvdb said:

Taking into account a few of the later comments - I had heard that Lepin did have a deal with one particular MOC builder, whether its true or not I am not sure

I don't know, but I can say that some times ago I was contacted by an non well defined chinese company that would have buy my projects, to be honest the offer was not bad at all, I don't know if there was Lepin behind, but the suspicious was very high, so I declined.

 

Personally, I take into consideration the fact that my BI will be stolen, or even simply shared between a bunch of people, in a way or in another...that's internet (or better the people on internet). But I also believe that without internet I would not sell them at all. And since my hobby is largely financed by the sales revenue of BI, without it, I could not afford to do the Mocs I've done in recent years. Also I must say that I found the AFOL community, in general, united, I have received several times reports of "fraudulent conduct" by AFOL...not all the hope is lost!

This does not mean that certain situations do not bother, some definitely more than others, but I think that, if possible, it's better to don't worry about to much, take the good things and let the bad thinks go.

I find absurd to save 10 or 20 euros on something that (in my case) costs 2000 euros in parts.

[Lipko]

The question is not wether it's perfectly okay to charge for instructions or not (I also paid for the P1 instructions, even though I never intended to build it). The question is that is it really worth going nuts and perhaps not sharing models because of the pirating, especially if it's not even sure that it harms the designer significantly (not considering knock-offs with mistakes which can ruin a designer's reputation).

BTW if I'd be approached by a knock-off company (I will never be on that level), I'd seriuosly consider contracting then if I were allowed to share any of my designs with the puplic without their permission. Also I would never accept a commision if I wasn't allowed to share the instructions (or digital file).

Edited September 20, 2018 by Lipko

[M_longer]

1 minute ago, Lipko said:

The question is that is it really worth going nuts and perhaps not sharing models because of the pirating, especially if it's not even sure that it harms the designer significantly (not considering knock-offs with mistakes which can ruin a designer's reputation).

 

This is the new level of something that is discussed here - there are even no instruction, yet they still try to steal it. That's sad :(

[Lipko]

7 minutes ago, M_longer said:

 

 

This is the new level of something that is discussed here - there are even no instruction, yet they still try to steal it. That's sad :(

Eric Leppen said that maybe this is the reason why it's better to share instruction than not. A good model will be knocked-off anyway, but you can guess the quality of such models with no instructions to work with. With that said, it's still a mistery how the could screw up Bruno's P1 and Madoca's Schaman. Is it intentional?

Edited September 20, 2018 by Lipko

[LvdH]

30 minutes ago, Lipko said:

...
With that said, it's still a mistery how the could screw up Bruno's P1 and Madoca's Schaman. Is it intentional?

I've seen several adverts of different sets with the build all wrong. The Aventador and One:1 are the biggest ones. None of the photos from them (they actually stole my photo of my LEGO Aventador....) look right. But I don't think it is going to look like that when people actually know how to follow instructions. I don't have any of these kits, but I don't think the parts are that much different to the extent where the build is totally different.

Edited September 20, 2018 by LvdH

[Bublehead]

Here is an Idea for you out there... people talk about watermarks and adding the original purchasers email in them to track where the stolen BI may have come from...  why not customize the model for every copy sold but don’t tell anyone?  Make step number 137 on page 35 place a part in a different place for every copy?  Now look at that part on the suspected knock off and see where they put it.  You now know where they got it.  Or at least if it is missing, you know they either figured out your ploy or they faked it and built it up from just static pictures, but that may be evident when you look at the rest of the models guts.

Not sure how I would feel if a knock off stole my moc. A bit flattered maybe, a little bit mad, but most likely disappointed- a LOT.  My dream job has always been to be an official Technic Lego designer... a pipe dream if there ever was one, but a dream nonetheless.  If somebody thought my design had enough merit to be considered worthy of being manufactured as a real product, that would kind of validate me as a designer, however a designer helping a knock off company kill the actual Lego company I love.  Now that is the ultimate catch 22 and the ultimate unwitting and unparticipating betrayal of a supporter of TLG in my mind.  So selling good BI for your MOC may bring you some income, some notoriety, and satisfaction and I am all for that if you want to.  When they steal it and use it to compete against TLG, that is when I would stop selling BI for my MOCs if I sold them, and it would make me question wether I would further continue with publishing of my MOCs and designs other than blurry distance shots.

 

[M_longer]

26 minutes ago, Bublehead said:

why not customize the model for every copy sold but don’t tell anyone?

It could work with 10 instructions sold. But how about 100 or 500? :)
 

[Mylenium]

36 minutes ago, Bublehead said:

Here is an Idea for you out there... people talk about watermarks and adding the original purchasers email in them to track where the stolen BI may have come from...  why not customize the model for every copy sold but don’t tell anyone?  Make step number 137 on page 35 place a part in a different place for every copy?

Given the limitations of current LEGO digital construction tools and the associated publishing tools that would be a nightmare to deal with. And I agree with @M_longer - for ten versions it might still be okay when done manually, but for more than that you spend more time on manipulating the docs than creating your next MOC. Also eventually you will simply lose track plus there's generally only so many ways to skin a cat. At some point it will get massively frustrating. I also wouldn't underestimate the counterfeiters. For technical reasons to control the printing process they are likely to rebuild the instructions to their own needs and specs and once they get a whiff of your manipulations, they could just eliminate them. you simply wouldn't ever know.

Mylenium

[kbalage]

@Bublehead it's a nice idea but won't work in reality - it'd mean you have to manage the distribution of the instructions yourself and track every iteration, link it to the specific seller. Tons of extra work and the best you can get out of it is the e-mail address/Paypal account of the guy who bought it for the copycat company. Does not worth the effort. Also as @Mylenium says if the instructions are stolen by a big company like Lepin, they will probably create their own version based on the original. You could only catch the small potatoes trying to resell instructions on E-bay or another equivalent of it.

[Bublehead]

Sorry for suggesting a lame solution, but  it was just an idea guys. I was unaware there was a market for more than a few dozen people buying instructions of a particular model. If you are selling so many it would be logistically difficult (hundreds?), I wish that I had problems like that. Is anyone trying to make a sole living selling BI or is this just side money to help defray Lego expenses?  Either way, good luck and best wishes. I am not into the BI creation/market scene and I don’t purchase third party Instructions for models, I download the free lame B model instructions straight from TLG website  

[Pvdb]

1 hour ago, Bublehead said:

I am not into the BI creation/market scene and I don’t purchase third party Instructions for models

I am also not heavily into building 3rd party MOCs but every now and so often it is worth a try purely because it is so interesting seeing the techniques of other builders - which are all a little bit unique.  I find that seeing this variety has helped develop my own technique.  Having experienced this, I find building Lego's own models which seem to follow a similar construction style a bit boring these day, so I get my 10 yr old son gets to build them - even the Chiron!!!!  I just get him to show me any new interesting bits along the build - Win - Win situation for me.

However, I stray way off Topic!  LvdH is right, the "knock off" brand seems incapable of doing a decent job on the more complex MOCs so good luck to all the "knock off" fans who spend their hard earned cash on their cheap imitation rubbish.

[Paul Boratko]

It sucks that this happens, but unfortunately there isn't anything that can be done about it.. Thieves from China have been stealing instructions and model designs for years.. I even had a website from China that was selling my instructions and piggy-backing right off of my own website... Lego themselves can't even stop these Chinese companies from knocking off their product, and they are a billion dollar company..

As far as selling instructions that are connected to another license, I advise everyone who does this to be very careful or you may get contacted by that company's legal department... There is a reason why I quit selling instructions for licensed models and only build generic made-up creations...

Edited September 20, 2018 by Paul Boratko

[WvG_853]

On 9/19/2018 at 10:51 PM, brunojj1 said:

Another option for myself: design exclusive MOCs on comission and none of the mentionned problems ever will happen again. People will offer me 2.000,00 Eur for instructions and I will say no again and again. Better: enjoy the hobby yourself, buy and build whatever for whomever you want and no posting on the internet. Sounds nice for me, seriously.

That would be a real shame! I think there are many people around here who would never buy a clone brand model, so there should be a market for loyal AFOLs who appreciate the great work you and others are doing and buy instructions to show their appreciation or in the hope to build your MOC one day. Don’t let a bunch of thiefs spoil your and our fun!

[RoxYourBlox]

As someone who has had a MOC stolen, here's what I have found effective:

1. Shame them. Regularly google your MOC and/or assigned product number. Participate in discussions of your MOC. Make buyers uncomfortable, especially if your mood fits the moment.
2. Buyer beware. Point out the flaws in your MOC. Remind buyers that your design isn't Lego's and therefore hasn't gone through their stringent review process. Point out that you built with Lego bricks and be skeptical whether your techniques could be replicated with another brand. Mention that you have made modifications to your model to fix some of the aforementioned flaws and that you cannot be sure which iteration Lepin has taken.
3. Report posts. You can enforce copyright by filing infringement reports for stolen photography at sites such as eBay and YouTube. (Facebook is less responsive to complaints, and material can hide behind locked groups.) Knowing that a video could be at risk of being taken down, buyers will be hesitant to review your set.

If word of mouth is bad, Lepin can and sometimes does cancel its announced products before they are released. Even after release, if MOC sales are bad relative to official TLG sets, you could help out your fellow AFOL by making the next stolen MOC less likely.

[rm8]

Is there anyone here, who knows more about Crowdfunding platforms? Which one is better for LEGO Instructions specific? I am going to test it soon. Open for your advices?

[DoomedACE]

What do you guys think of the following thought?

• The sales of your BI actually go up, because a certain subset of the Lepin buyers recognize your work, and want to support you, although they have bought the set from china.

 

I for myself feel tempted sometimes, because of the hassle (and shipping costs) of the necessary BrickLink orders. The convience is one factor that is not to be overlooked. Although I have not given in to the temptation, in that case I would still buy your instructions, for the reason given above...

 

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by DoomedACE

[Aleh]

Just now, DoomedACE said:

What do you guys think of the following thought?

• The sales of your BI actually go up, because a certain subset of the Lepin buyers recognize your work, and want to support you, although they have bought the set from china.

 

I for myself feel tempted sometimes, because of the hassle (and shipping costs) of the necessary BrickLink orders. The convience is one factor that is not to be overlooked. Although I have not given in to the temptation, in that case I would still buy your instructions, for the reason given above...

 

 

People in China do not have enough original parts to buy only instructions, they need both instructions and parts. Original one is too expensive. Assume people who buy stolen sets do not care about the original author.

From the other hand I do not care about stolen MOCs - I'm Lego purist and definitely will buy BI from the author instead of buying counterfeit kit. 

11 hours ago, rm8 said:

Is there anyone here, who knows more about Crowdfunding platforms? Which one is better for LEGO Instructions specific? I am going to test it soon. Open for your advices?

I used https://ulej.by/

But it's local and do not looks suitable the the world afol community.

[DoomedACE]

Just now, Aleh said:

Assume people who buy stolen sets do not care about the original author.

I am quite sure that some people care, this is a discussion point that sometimes comes up in the knock-off forums. (Yes, I read those too sometimes.)

As I am completely unskilled in technic Mocs - I have no experience in selling instructions, but l would be interested in how the sales are actually developing from the people who are recognized in the community...