What is the acceptable level of taking inspiration from another MOC?

[firefabric]

Hi,

I would like to ask you for an opinion on the matter of making similar MOCs, what would you consider being a copy, a modification or being inspired by?

There are a lot of experienced builders here, so I would like hear your expert opinion as I recently had my first experience of feeling like someone crossed the line of 'being inspired by' with one of my MOCs. It's not about which is better or worse, I would just like to understand if my feeling is founded or not.

I have had some discussions about this but they have left me slightly confused, so I would appreciate the feedback. Here is the comparison image, my version is on the right side which was published almost 2 years ago, the one on the left was published a few weeks ago.

You can also open a bigger version of the picture from this link.

 

 

Thank you.

 

[Peppermint_M]

Some facts I would like before I can say much:

Has the builder of the second MOC specifically said they were inspired by or used elements of your build?

Do you distribute the instructions for people to use for building a copy?

Was your build that you created completely devoid of any LEGO Set techniques (AKA, based on the wheelbase design of a Speed Champion Set, or started with the actual DeLorean Set with the intention of scaling down)?

When two people build something based of an iconic element of a very well known pre-existing property, it is not easy to say someone has copied a specific MOC if their version looks like the source to the same extent as your own. Some common build techniques are so universal that they are not copied, but come upon by builders independent of each other, so even that cannot be used as a basis for judging. 

Without the context of a MOC post, it is also hard to say - if someone mentions basing a build of someone else's version, that could make a case.

[MAB]

It also depends on what they are doing with it. If you published instructions and they changed 10 parts and display it for their own use, saying it is based on yours, it is one thing. If they change 10 parts and are selling their own instructions it is something else.

[firefabric]

Thanks for the reply, I'll add some clarifications to the questions below:

>>> Has the builder of the second MOC specifically said they were inspired by or used elements of your build?

I approached him about this, and he absolutely denies any inspiration and does not admit any similarity in the design, except for the tail lights and the exhaust vents in the back.

>>> Do you distribute the instructions for people to use for building a copy?

Yes, the instructions are available at Rebrickable for both designs. To my knowledge, he has not used my instructions.

>>> Was your build that you created completely devoid of any LEGO Set techniques (AKA, based on the wheelbase design of a Speed Champion Set, or started with the actual DeLorean Set with the intention of scaling down)?

Yes mine was done fully custom, from the ground up.

 

[firefabric]

13 minutes ago, MAB said:

It also depends on what they are doing with it. If you published instructions and they changed 10 parts and display it for their own use, saying it is based on yours, it is one thing. If they change 10 parts and are selling their own instructions it is something else.

Yes that is true. The instructions are on Rebrickable, and I have seen some built with a few modifications here and there. That's perfectly ok and I would even encourage to do that.

Now it's more towards the second case... and I don't even mind about selling instructions etc so much, I just have a strong feeling a line was crossed. I didn't feel like this for any other similar MOC that I have seen until now, so that's why I'm asking for opinions.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, firefabric said:

To my knowledge, he has not used my instructions.

 

44 minutes ago, firefabric said:

I just have a strong feeling a line was crossed.

These don't really go together.

Designs of the same licensed property at the same scale built by different people can look similar. You are both trying to recreate the same thing. When there are 100+ versions of the same thing, some of those will look very similar. I imagine you have both used techniques from official LEGO sets too, whether you intentionally copy them or just recall a good way to put specific parts together. Parts of yours will no doubt look similar to bits of other people's that built it before you.

[firefabric]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

These don't really go together.

Designs of the same licensed property at the same scale built by different people can look similar. You are both trying to recreate the same thing. When there are 100+ versions of the same thing, some of those will look very similar. I imagine you have both used techniques from official LEGO sets too, whether you intentionally copy them or just recall a good way to put specific parts together. Parts of yours will no doubt look similar to bits of other people's that built it before you.

It is a valid argument and normally I would think like that too. There will definitely be similarities in builds of the same subject and that is ok. In this case, at least in my eyes, there are so many similarities and identical things that the end result looks more or less the same overall, with some obvious differences of course. That happening fully unintentionally seems quite unlikely, especially when I have not seen any other MOC of the same thing which is even remotely this close.

Regarding not using the instructions, I'd think that's not a deciding factor since an experienced MOC builder would be able to create the same 'shell' based on a few pictures and make their own structure etc inside. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here as I agree it's not a copy, I just feel that too many things were taken directly from the design so it ended up looking too similar.

[MaximillianRebo]

As others have said, you're both building MOCs based on an existing and well known model, so it's to be expected that some design choices and part usage can be arrived at independently and yet be almost identical because you're both trying to recreate the same design.

A murky area with Rebrickable and other MOC sites - or at least something where people tend to look the other way - is that you're both charging for instructions for an IP that I doubt has given any sort of permission for the use of their property. I know this practice is rife amongst MOC sites (and Etsy, and pretty much the whole internet) and you've said you don't mind about the other builder selling instructions but you're both (potentially) benefitting from someone else's work, somewhere along the line.

[MAB]

19 minutes ago, firefabric said:

 

Regarding not using the instructions, I'd think that's not a deciding factor since an experienced MOC builder would be able to create the same 'shell' based on a few pictures and make their own structure etc inside. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here as I agree it's not a copy, I just feel that too many things were taken directly from the design so it ended up looking too similar.

I can also see similarities in places between yours and other designs of the same car that came before. Those designers could feel that you have copied bits from their design including part selection for specific items, even if not the whole thing, and it becomes a closed argument. You've also both used the same parts as LEGO used in their version in some places. Should the first person to design something that looks like a third company's intellectual property get to close down any future versions, because they use similar parts for the decoration on the outside. Of course the reality is often many people would have chosen the same LEGO element if they were designing the same thing at the same scale.

[firefabric]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

I can also see similarities in places between yours and other designs of the same car that came before. Those designers could feel that you have copied bits from their design including part selection for specific items, even if not the whole thing, and it becomes a closed argument. You've also both used the same parts as LEGO used in their version in some places. Should the first person to design something that looks like a third company's intellectual property get to close down any future versions, because they use similar parts for the decoration on the outside. Of course the reality is often many people would have chosen the same LEGO element if they were designing the same thing at the same scale.

As I said, of course there a similarities in every build, there is no question about that. But how much is too much, when is the design too similar, that is my question.

[SpacePolice89]

Is a MOC considered a work of art or something similar and is it protected by any laws? If I build a Spyrius spaceship and someone copies it, can I take them to court?  I would of course never do that and only be happy that someone likes my build so much that they want one for themselves.

[Yperio_Bricks]

1 hour ago, SpacePolice89 said:

I would of course never do that and only be happy that someone likes my build so much that they want one for themselves.

That's exactly how i would feel! And it's much more healthy too.

There are so many mocs out there and so many people are in the instructions business, and icons of popular culture have been created so many times, it's hard (impossible) to say who was first with this or that technique or NPU. And as was mentioned above, many techniques have been in used official Lego sets before.

Do i see similarities in the pictures presented in this thread? Sure! But there are also differences!

[firefabric]

3 hours ago, MaximillianRebo said:

As others have said, you're both building MOCs based on an existing and well known model, so it's to be expected that some design choices and part usage can be arrived at independently and yet be almost identical because you're both trying to recreate the same design.

A murky area with Rebrickable and other MOC sites - or at least something where people tend to look the other way - is that you're both charging for instructions for an IP that I doubt has given any sort of permission for the use of their property. I know this practice is rife amongst MOC sites (and Etsy, and pretty much the whole internet) and you've said you don't mind about the other builder selling instructions but you're both (potentially) benefitting from someone else's work, somewhere along the line.

I agree that it's possible to arrive at the same destination independently, albeit odds are against it. It would of course be again different if the work was done at the same time without knowing.

Regarding instruction sales - that's another topic but in short, this is only my hobby and I'm not doing it for profit. I only create models I'm passionate about (otherwise they wouldn't get finished even). I actually do enjoy creating instructions for successful builds, and I chose to add them on Rebrickable so that others can do the builds also if they want to. I chose to have most of them paid because that sems to be the norm on Rebrickable, but I consider the small amount more like a tip for creating the instructions. It's not any kind of business for me at least, and whatever I get goes basically to Lego Pick-a-Brick and Bricklink sellers.

Regarding the IP, that is true but so far I have considered it's as a fan-based hobby, not a business even though there are small transactions involved. But if that was enforced to the tee, as you pointed out, half on internet should be probably shut down...

[firefabric]

1 hour ago, SpacePolice89 said:

Is a MOC considered a work of art or something similar and is it protected by any laws? If I build a Spyrius spaceship and someone copies it, can I take them to court?  I would of course never do that and only be happy that someone likes my build so much that they want one for themselves.

This is actually pretty much how I also think. I think a MOC can be considered a work of art to some extent at least, Lego is definitely a recognised medium. But the IP comes from originality and making a scale mode of another IP isn't original. For say plastic models it's clearer, but Lego model is always an interpretation at best.

Even in this case I'm not trying to claim any IP or parts usage exclusive rights. I'm just trying to figure out how I should feel about this, because I would not put out a MOC which is very close to another, I do actually check before publishing a MOC what others have done, for this reason exactly.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, firefabric said:

I'm just trying to figure out how I should feel about this, because I would not put out a MOC which is very close to another, I do actually check before publishing a MOC what others have done, for this reason exactly.

You should feel how you feel. If you want to be outraged by it, then be outraged. If you don't mind it, then don't mind it. If you want an exact percentage that can be produced in the same or similar way then you'd have to ask a lawyer. There is no community guideline. However, a lawyer would probably tell you that you are on very thin ice as you are trying to profit from another company's design without their permission. If someone copied a design that was truly of your making, then more people would care and in fact there have been similar discussions about it when a designer was giving instructions for free and someone took them and started selling the designs - they suffered a lot of backlash from various sites. But where you have reproduced a third party's IP in a way that many others have done before, and you are expecting payment for it, then other people care a lot less.

 

[firefabric]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

You should feel how you feel. If you want to be outraged by it, then be outraged. If you don't mind it, then don't mind it. If you want an exact percentage that can be produced in the same or similar way then you'd have to ask a lawyer. There is no community guideline. However, a lawyer would probably tell you that you are on very thin ice as you are trying to profit from another company's design without their permission. If someone copied a design that was truly of your making, then more people would care and in fact there have been similar discussions about it when a designer was giving instructions for free and someone took them and started selling the designs - they suffered a lot of backlash from various sites. But where you have reproduced a third party's IP in a way that many others have done before, and you are expecting payment for it, then other people care a lot less.

 

I think you are going a bit deeper than needed for the original topic here. There is no legal action to be taken or exact percentages needed, and yes I know how I feel. It's neither of those things but I just hoped to hear genuine opinions as this was something that caught me a bit by surprise. Again I want to emphasize even more that this not about profit or IP or anything like that, just wanted to state that again as you seem to go back to those. It's basically just about the design similarities.

Of course if someone directly sells your instructions, free or paid, that's not something they worked for so it's clearly wrong. I have some experience in that as well, there are Chinese companies who just took my instructions (both free and paid) and are selling unauthorized sets online. Not ideal and they are doing that only for profit. This one is not that case at all and I have never even implied that.

Regarding the IP, probably 90% of MOCs on Rebrickable have some associated IP attached (Star Wars being the prime example), but I would think as long as you are not running a business and it's small-scale fandom-based work, it's ok even if there's a small 'thanks-type' fee. Most people seem to be happy to give that, but I know some think all MOCs should be free. But then should Bricklink sellers also provide the bricks for free to be fair (sarcasm, to be clear)...

[smazmats]

I primarily build scale rockets and spacecraft, and over the past couple years a decent sized community has grown around this shared MOC niche with a dozen or so regular builders. Pretty much everyone builds to the same couple of scales so it is often the case that the same thing can be created multiple times by different people. I totally get what you are going through and I too have been through this exact experience before. For me personally, If there is a similar design, I generally try to look at similar models with a set of criteria that one would use to evaluate work for fair use. The biggest thing I try to look for is how much of the original model is used. Generally, I expect about 60% of the MOC to be original. If you were to remove all the similar features/builds from the new design and it can't stand on its own (more in a figurative sense then structural) and the build is unrecognizable, there is definitely a case to be had. I also find it helpful to "downsize" the comparison where rather then the entire model all at once, compare a bunch of the smaller details, one at a time, to see how much was copied. I have found that often MOCs can look pretty similar from afar, but when compared up close there can be a lot of variation. If its on Rebirckable, I also try and see what the MOC internals look like if possible, as there should be more variation due to the reduced requirement for accurately capturing details, and similarities should be less of a just a coincidence. Offering instructions (both free and paid)  also complicates things, but I may use that as a determining factor of how much I need to respond. If there are no instructions and they are just showing off a MOC that clearly infringes on my own, I may just ask them to credit me as a inspiration or ignore it, however if they are trying to sell it, I will report it to rebrickable to get it removed, as it is essentially functions the same as my existing MOC and is competing with it. Nathan is pretty good with responding to take-down requests if there is enough evidence of infringement.

I did look at the comparison you provided between the time machines and unfortunately, I do not think there is a case here. There are definitely similarities on some details of both MOCs, but I can also see a lot of variation in the hoods and rear bodywork that is original and unique to each model .

[Mylenium]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:49 AM, firefabric said:

There are a lot of experienced builders here, so I would like hear your expert opinion as I recently had my first experience of feeling like someone crossed the line of 'being inspired by' with one of my MOCs. It's not about which is better or worse, I would just like to understand if my feeling is founded or not.

I'm with @MAB on this one. If you want to ruin your day by feeling offended then so be it, but otherwise there's no substance to it, not legally, not in the abstract sense of what constitutes art and interpretation. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck, but it's really pointless to even waste a second thought on it. If you were to apply this attitude, professional product designers could be upset all day for finding Chinese rip-offs of their work in dollar stores. It just happens all the time these days. And if you want to open that can of worms: When it comes to copyright issues, there is rarely ever any discussion about "acceptable". It's all handled in absolutes and you would have to prove every tiny bit of it. It's pretty much binary. Either you have infringed or you haven't.

1 hour ago, MuscoviteSandwich said:

For me personally, If there is a similar design, I generally try to look at similar models with a set of criteria that one would use to evaluate work for fair use.

Pretty much irrelevant. Those rules don't even apply universally inside the US, much less outside of it. There is no such thing in the EU and our Finnish friend would have a hard time falling back on this. That's why the situation is so complicated. It all hinges on how much of a "Live and let live" approach everyone has based on the individual laws and regulations regarding art and its interpretation, freedom of speech and expression and EU copyright and trademark laws.

Mylenium

[firefabric]

19 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

I'm with @MAB on this one. If you want to ruin your day by feeling offended then so be it, but otherwise there's no substance to it, not legally, not in the abstract sense of what constitutes art and interpretation. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck, but it's really pointless to even waste a second thought on it. If you were to apply this attitude, professional product designers could be upset all day for finding Chinese rip-offs of their work in dollar stores. It just happens all the time these days. And if you want to open that can of worms: When it comes to copyright issues, there is rarely ever any discussion about "acceptable". It's all handled in absolutes and you would have to prove every tiny bit of it. It's pretty much binary. Either you have infringed or you haven't.

Pretty much irrelevant. Those rules don't even apply universally inside the US, much less outside of it. There is no such thing in the EU and our Finnish friend would have a hard time falling back on this. That's why the situation is so complicated. It all hinges on how much of a "Live and let live" approach everyone has based on the individual laws and regulations regarding art and its interpretation, freedom of speech and expression and EU copyright and trademark laws.

Mylenium

I think you are also taking the topic too deep, I'm not claiming any IP rights or surely not taking any legal action (no need to tell me that would pointless, that is clear from the start). So that is not the point at all, this is about what is let's say 'polite' in the MOC community. I feel that publishing a MOC this close to mine was at least impolite, and that's as far as it goes. Yes it probably ruined my day one day, but that's my problem and I'll deal with it. 

And I'm sure the professional designers are also upset when they find the Chinese rip-offs. Why would you think they wouldn't be?

[MAB]

12 hours ago, firefabric said:

I think you are going a bit deeper than needed for the original topic here. There is no legal action to be taken or exact percentages needed, and yes I know how I feel. It's neither of those things but I just hoped to hear genuine opinions as this was something that caught me a bit by surprise. Again I want to emphasize even more that this not about profit or IP or anything like that, just wanted to state that again as you seem to go back to those. It's basically just about the design similarities.

Of course if someone directly sells your instructions, free or paid, that's not something they worked for so it's clearly wrong. I have some experience in that as well, there are Chinese companies who just took my instructions (both free and paid) and are selling unauthorized sets online. Not ideal and they are doing that only for profit. This one is not that case at all and I have never even implied that.

Regarding the IP, probably 90% of MOCs on Rebrickable have some associated IP attached (Star Wars being the prime example), but I would think as long as you are not running a business and it's small-scale fandom-based work, it's ok even if there's a small 'thanks-type' fee. Most people seem to be happy to give that, but I know some think all MOCs should be free. But then should Bricklink sellers also provide the bricks for free to be fair (sarcasm, to be clear)...

First, you are running a business. This is not a one off, you have more than ten sets of instructions for sale on rebrickable. You are repeating the same action, making MOCs to profit from them, which is a business.  It might not be a very profitable one, but the intention is to make money from the sales so it is a business. They are also all based on other companies' intellectual property, which puts you in a grey area both with the company and with other designers that are giving away or selling instructions for the same object. 

What does it matter how others feel? If you feel OK about it, that's fine. If you feel angry about it, that's fine. Different people will feel differently. 

Something you may not have considered is that you have almost certainly infringed on the other designer's copyright. Presumably you do not have permission to use his images - and he owns the copyright to those images (even if not the design, he has copyright over his own images, he created them). Obviously I am assuming he has not given you permission to use his images to portray him in a negative way online. Unless you have built his design and taken the comparison images that you have published, you are infringing on his copyright. You are taking his property and using it without permission. 

[firefabric]

2 hours ago, MuscoviteSandwich said:

I primarily build scale rockets and spacecraft, and over the past couple years a decent sized community has grown around this shared MOC niche with a dozen or so regular builders. Pretty much everyone builds to the same couple of scales so it is often the case that the same thing can be created multiple times by different people. I totally get what you are going through and I too have been through this exact experience before. For me personally, If there is a similar design, I generally try to look at similar models with a set of criteria that one would use to evaluate work for fair use. The biggest thing I try to look for is how much of the original model is used. Generally, I expect about 60% of the MOC to be original. If you were to remove all the similar features/builds from the new design and it can't stand on its own (more in a figurative sense then structural) and the build is unrecognizable, there is definitely a case to be had. I also find it helpful to "downsize" the comparison where rather then the entire model all at once, compare a bunch of the smaller details, one at a time, to see how much was copied. I have found that often MOCs can look pretty similar from afar, but when compared up close there can be a lot of variation. If its on Rebirckable, I also try and see what the MOC internals look like if possible, as there should be more variation due to the reduced requirement for accurately capturing details, and similarities should be less of a just a coincidence. Offering instructions (both free and paid)  also complicates things, but I may use that as a determining factor of how much I need to respond. If there are no instructions and they are just showing off a MOC that clearly infringes on my own, I may just ask them to credit me as a inspiration or ignore it, however if they are trying to sell it, I will report it to rebrickable to get it removed, as it is essentially functions the same as my existing MOC and is competing with it. Nathan is pretty good with responding to take-down requests if there is enough evidence of infringement.

I did look at the comparison you provided between the time machines and unfortunately, I do not think there is a case here. There are definitely similarities on some details of both MOCs, but I can also see a lot of variation in the hoods and rear bodywork that is original and unique to each model .

Thanks for a constructive reply, this is something I was looking for. I can see you actually have experience in the same sort of thing, these are very good points. I did go through most of the steps you described and your analysis matches RB admin's reply to my report. They considered it as a close call, but sided on leaving the other MOC up. For me I feel that if we blur out the hood changes and rear details (in the rear hatch), I couldn't tell them apart, but of course my view is probably more critical than others. However that was determined as enough variation so I accepted that, even if I don't fully agree.

[firefabric]

22 minutes ago, MAB said:

First, you are running a business. This is not a one off, you have more than ten sets of instructions for sale on rebrickable. You are repeating the same action, making MOCs to profit from them, which is a business.  It might not be a very profitable one, but the intention is to make money from the sales so it is a business. They are also all based on other companies' intellectual property, which puts you in a grey area both with the company and with other designers that are giving away or selling instructions for the same object. 

What does it matter how others feel? If you feel OK about it, that's fine. If you feel angry about it, that's fine. Different people will feel differently. 

Something you may not have considered is that you have almost certainly infringed on the other designer's copyright. Presumably you do not have permission to use his images - and he owns the copyright to those images (even if not the design, he has copyright over his own images, he created them). Obviously I am assuming he has not given you permission to use his images to portray him in a negative way online. Unless you have built his design and taken the comparison images that you have published, you are infringing on his copyright. You are taking his property and using it without permission. 

Well, this is another topic altogether and I'm not sure why you are pressing on it. It's not the point here and I'm not going to repeat it anymore.

Regarding using the other pictures for comparison, there is something called fair use, I'll put it under that.

And why do you care if I ask for an opinion from others? I feel what I feel, you can also feel as you wish. This is something people do, discuss about matters right?

 

[JesseNight]

To get back on the original topic, the things that really match both models are the IP it's based on, and the exact same camera angles having been used to show it off.
When I look closely at the bigger picture, I see lots of differences in all the details, all around the entire model. The headlights, the hood, the front side fenders, the side cabling and connections, the rear bumpers, and a lot of the time machine specific details on the back on top of the engine cover.
If you ask me, the identical photo angles might be one of the main culprits here making it look so much alike until you take a closer look.

How would I feel? Maybe a bit meh if someone used the exact same angles on not 1, not 2, but every one of the pictures... But nothing else besides seeing more people enjoying the same model. But I must say that for me this is a hobby, not a business.

As for copyright infringement... We're already infringing if we're making money off the BTTF IP. Something LEGO surely had to get permission for and likely pay a fee when it comes to the official models.

[MAB]

4 hours ago, JesseNight said:

To get back on the original topic, the things that really match both models are the IP it's based on, and the exact same camera angles having been used to show it off.
When I look closely at the bigger picture, I see lots of differences in all the details, all around the entire model. The headlights, the hood, the front side fenders, the side cabling and connections, the rear bumpers, and a lot of the time machine specific details on the back on top of the engine cover.
If you ask me, the identical photo angles might be one of the main culprits here making it look so much alike until you take a closer look.

How would I feel? Maybe a bit meh if someone used the exact same angles on not 1, not 2, but every one of the pictures... But nothing else besides seeing more people enjoying the same model. But I must say that for me this is a hobby, not a business.

As for copyright infringement... We're already infringing if we're making money off the BTTF IP. Something LEGO surely had to get permission for and likely pay a fee when it comes to the official models.

Presumably Firefabric copied the poses of the other designer to highlight what he was calling copying.

[firefabric]

8 minutes ago, MAB said:

Presumably Firefabric copied the poses of the other designer to highlight what he was calling copying.

Isn't that kind of obvious, that was the whole point of this post. Of course I would use the same angles, it's a comparison... isn't that the easiest way to see what's the same and what is not? However, I never called it copying, I specifically said it's not. Please read my posts to verify.

 

5 hours ago, JesseNight said:

To get back on the original topic, the things that really match both models are the IP it's based on, and the exact same camera angles having been used to show it off.
When I look closely at the bigger picture, I see lots of differences in all the details, all around the entire model. The headlights, the hood, the front side fenders, the side cabling and connections, the rear bumpers, and a lot of the time machine specific details on the back on top of the engine cover.
If you ask me, the identical photo angles might be one of the main culprits here making it look so much alike until you take a closer look.

How would I feel? Maybe a bit meh if someone used the exact same angles on not 1, not 2, but every one of the pictures... But nothing else besides seeing more people enjoying the same model. But I must say that for me this is a hobby, not a business.

As for copyright infringement... We're already infringing if we're making money off the BTTF IP. Something LEGO surely had to get permission for and likely pay a fee when it comes to the official models.

JesseNight's comparison is also correct. There are definitely differences, I agree. My issue has been all along that the overall design is very similar, and a lot is also either same or very close. My list of identical/nearly identical things would be: front fender, side mirrors, sides (from in front of mirrors including doors), silver grilles (positioning and usage is almost the same), mr. fusion, exhaust vents, rear lights/fascia, hover mode wheel attachments. The size is also exactly the same, that's of course natural, but all of the those things make it look like the same design to my eye. But it's a matter of opinion what things are relevant and what not, that's why I posted the question.

Regarding the same photo angles, again I would think that's the best way to see the similarities and differences...?